A
Amaris
Guest
I think the episode will premiere to the public on Sept. 30th.
Star Trek: Renegades
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
That guy surely likes to hear himself talk. While he has a couple of valid points, I think he massively exaggerates on almost all of his critical points - a typical reaction when you just saw something, instead of a calm rational examination, which is what a critic should do.
All I can say from everything I've seen, heard, and read... There are three suggestions I would make.
One. Get away from referential material. Yeah, the odd reference here and there is neat, but when every nook and cranny of the plot makes some reference to this or that it doesn't feel particularly clever. It comes off as if the core ideas of the production are either too feeble, or those making the production have no faith in their own original ideas.
Two. Ensure that everything needed to understand what is happening is actually in the story your telling. A number of reviews indicate that chunks of the film seem to be missing proper explanation. It's also important to understand how to emphasize something important versus something/someeone ancillary.
Three. Some of the actors need help with their performances. Acting is not the art of delivering lines of dialogue. They need to internalize their characters and actually understand what the scene is really about. That requires that the writer(s), director etc understand what the scene, and the story, are actually about. It might not be a bad idea to get an acting coach in there just to help shore up some of the performances.
Also, what actors do when they are not speaking can be just as important as what they do when they do speak. Reacting to what others are doing at the right time can make scenes far more depthful and extend beyond just the written words.
A couple examples to draw inspiration from: In Babylon 5 there was a scene between two of the series main supporting characters. They get trapped in an elevator and it's basically that old trope of having two enemies work together to survive. JMS, already works to circumvent expectations by having one character say "Nope. I'm not working with you. I'd rather watch you die." He wrote it to play as a serious dramatic scene. The actors, knowing their characters all too well, decided to play the scene with a dark edge of humor instead. Not changing a word of dialogue, just playing the scene comedically resulted in an additional layer being added. So giving the actors the tools to be able to come up with creative things of that sort would be a good idea.
Another example, and this leans more towards actors performance on an individual basis is of course Leonard Nimoy, who realized that because Spock had developed into a more reserved character and his expressions were very limited, he could get a lot of power out of simple gestures, like raising an eyebrow, which very rapidly become a trope of the Spock character. So, depending entirely on what kind of a character you're dealing with, finding the nuances that flesh them out in such simple ways as facial expressions and body language is very important to adding nuance.
I mean no offense, and I am fully aware of how trying creating a production on this scale can be, these are just my general suggestions. I think the Renegades concept has a lot of potential, and I wish everyone involved the best of luck going forward.
One. Get away from referential material. Yeah, the odd reference here and there is neat, but when every nook and cranny of the plot makes some reference to this or that it doesn't feel particularly clever. It comes off as if the core ideas of the production are either too feeble, or those making the production have no faith in their own original ideas.
Two. Ensure that everything needed to understand what is happening is actually in the story your telling. A number of reviews indicate that chunks of the film seem to be missing proper explanation. It's also important to understand how to emphasize something important versus something/someeone ancillary.
Three. Some of the actors need help with their performances. Acting is not the art of delivering lines of dialogue. They need to internalize their characters and actually understand what the scene is really about. That requires that the writer(s), director etc understand what the scene, and the story, are actually about. It might not be a bad idea to get an acting coach in there just to help shore up some of the performances.
Also, what actors do when they are not speaking can be just as important as what they do when they do speak. Reacting to what others are doing at the right time can make scenes far more depthful and extend beyond just the written words.
A couple examples to draw inspiration from: In Babylon 5 there was a scene between two of the series main supporting characters. They get trapped in an elevator and it's basically that old trope of having two enemies work together to survive. JMS, already works to circumvent expectations by having one character say "Nope. I'm not working with you. I'd rather watch you die." He wrote it to play as a serious dramatic scene. The actors, knowing their characters all too well, decided to play the scene with a dark edge of humor instead. Not changing a word of dialogue, just playing the scene comedically resulted in an additional layer being added. So giving the actors the tools to be able to come up with creative things of that sort would be a good idea.
Another example, and this leans more towards actors performance on an individual basis is of course Leonard Nimoy, who realized that because Spock had developed into a more reserved character and his expressions were very limited, he could get a lot of power out of simple gestures, like raising an eyebrow, which very rapidly become a trope of the Spock character. So, depending entirely on what kind of a character you're dealing with, finding the nuances that flesh them out in such simple ways as facial expressions and body language is very important to adding nuance.
I mean no offense, and I am fully aware of how trying creating a production on this scale can be, these are just my general suggestions. I think the Renegades concept has a lot of potential, and I wish everyone involved the best of luck going forward.
For someone who gripes about editing, he is about 8 min too long
There's a huge difference between editing a dramatic presentation and editing a You Tube review video.
There's actually nothing wrong with his editing. You could argue he goes on too long, yes, but since it's played for humour (which is entirely subjective) that's a matter of debate.
I wish people would just WRITE reviews these days- I am tired of watching armchair experts mugging in front of the camera.
Agreed. He was pretty on point, even if his passion got the better of him. I'd say that's more due to personality than anything else. Some people put their reviews online and are dull as doornails.
This guy, at least, was entertaining. The last thing you want to be when you put out something on YouTube is boring . Just ask the Dreadnought: Dominion people.
There have been plenty of written reviews, and it has yet to be released to non-donors.
(1) http://kryptonradio.com/2015/08/03/movie-review-star-trek-renegades/
(2) http://www.startrekaxanar.com/fan-film-friday-star-trek-renegades-raises-the-bar/
(3) http://scifi4me.com/2015/08/07/star-trek-renegades-not-so-rebellious/
(4) https://www.facebook.com/STRtheSeries/posts/1017753398256053:0
(5) http://moviehole.net/201594127star-trek-renegades-review
(6) (German) https://www.robots-and-dragons.de/artikel/15673-star-trek-renegades-eindruecke-vom-fedcon-screening
Once it's released, I'm confident there will be more.
It would also have robbed us of Roger Ebert's legendary review of the 1994 movie, North: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994
This review provided the title to Ebert's collection of his worst reviews, entitled I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie.
Last edited:
I'm listening to that review, and Blunty has to be the calmest online reviewer I've ever heard. Some of the stuff he said makes me think that video isn't his usual medium of choice though.
I did think it was funny that he thought Star Trek fans wouldn't rip it apart. We rip everything apart, usually before we've even seen it. 'Tis the Trekkie way!
I haven't downloaded my final copy yet (I tried, but it was back with that original non-working link and I haven't got around to trying the new ones), but based on what I saw with the preview stream a month or so back, his critique has merit. The only thing I'm not sure about are the sfx, because apparently they were a work in progress on the version I've watched.
And he said it was at least worth checking out, so that's something. So long as the creative team is open to listening to criticisms and trying to improve, I'll look in on the next attempt. Selling it as a pilot wasn't what hooked me anyway.
I did think it was funny that he thought Star Trek fans wouldn't rip it apart. We rip everything apart, usually before we've even seen it. 'Tis the Trekkie way!
I haven't downloaded my final copy yet (I tried, but it was back with that original non-working link and I haven't got around to trying the new ones), but based on what I saw with the preview stream a month or so back, his critique has merit. The only thing I'm not sure about are the sfx, because apparently they were a work in progress on the version I've watched.
And he said it was at least worth checking out, so that's something. So long as the creative team is open to listening to criticisms and trying to improve, I'll look in on the next attempt. Selling it as a pilot wasn't what hooked me anyway.
It could be argued that it was unwise to release it in any form that could be considered "incomplete", but that's the producers' prerogative. I wonder if anyone involved in the production stopped and thought, "maybe we should wait and release this when we can say that it's truly finished." That might've helped stem some of the recurring criticisms of dodgy FX.
As to whether Trek fans would be kinder than most or would just rip Renegades apart, I think you and Blunty are both right to some extent. I've seen reviews that have been incredibly glowing while completely overlooking what have been issues/concerns that have been common to most reviews I've read. Meanwhile, I've only found one review so far (from the FedCon screening) that was flat-out terrible. Most have been generally mixed; pointing out what positives the reviewers see, but not ignoring the movie's problems.
Last edited:
My opinion, (everyone has one) is that it's a mistake to release work before it's finished, ESPECIALLY to donors. I didn't watch Phase II' Blood and Fire until I could watch both parts in final form. What I saw was good. Then I read some of the reviews of it, which didn't reflect my experience at all. Very negative. Granted, I do have more patience for a scene that is giving me characterization than some people, but what I saw was clearly better than what they were complaining about.
I'm glad I had my experience, not their experience. Sure, if you can get a person who is knowledgeable about films and editing to look at a draft that isn't finished, that person's comments will be a gold mine. I think filmmakers do the average viewer a favor by having him or her wait for a final product.
I'm glad I had my experience, not their experience. Sure, if you can get a person who is knowledgeable about films and editing to look at a draft that isn't finished, that person's comments will be a gold mine. I think filmmakers do the average viewer a favor by having him or her wait for a final product.
Last edited:
Who the heck would watch it other than Trekkies?
Who the heck would watch it other than Trekkies?
True, there's not even a guarantee that even most Trekkies would give it a shot, to say nothing of any other potential audience.
Last edited:
Watching works in progress is a disappointment for most people, in part because most audiences aren't accustomed to seeing the spit and bailing wire side of the work, and also because it's tough to engage the willing suspension of disbelief when unfinished or placeholder elements keep popping up and knocking you out of it.
It was. We're talking about the preview that was streamed to backers at the end of July.
I brought it up to say that I'd only seen that and therefore couldn't judge the finished effects (one of the complaints had been that they weren't great.) The conversation evolved from there.
I brought it up to say that I'd only seen that and therefore couldn't judge the finished effects (one of the complaints had been that they weren't great.) The conversation evolved from there.
Similar threads
