Starship Saladin: Eye of the Tempest

[Raymar3d]

For the sake of the big picture, here's a link to my first audio-only episode....

Published on May 23, 2013
In this audio-only episode, Commander Ray Martin reflects on the aftermath of the M-5 disaster, and decides whether or not to accept command of the Starfleet Destroyer, USS Saladin.
https://youtu.be/rHG8mzBSCrc


...and a co-starring appearance in Star Trek: Valkyrie "The Captain's Table" for which I wrote my scene and helped edit the final production.

https://youtu.be/TB308r3gFLU

 

[Maurice]

Hi Ken. And welcome!

You're new here and I'm guessing you didn't read the User CP. Members are discouraged from writing multiple sequential posts because it looks like spamming. Typically the moderators like us to wait until people reply to previous posts before writing another. There's also a multi-quote feature here which allows you to reply to multiple posts in a single message. I'll be happy to explain how that works if you like.

As to my comment about "technobabble", it's not about whether or not the things said in the show are authentic or not. Any time a character rattles off a lot of jargon, whether real or fictional, that's technobabble.

babbling about tech = technobabble​

When you say there is no story, I point out the plot as stated above. It in fact is a plot.

Here is where the rub is. Above what I quoted you listed off a series of tech items. But such a list is not a "plot" in of itself. A plot is merely the sequence of events in the story. And plot on its own is not necessarily a story.

A story is about The Problem a protagonist must face and what personal risks and decisions must be made to solve it. Quicksand is merely plot device, how the protagonist faces it and what it tells us about her is story.

"The Trouble With Technobabble" is that it has a tendency to become the story. Tech A happens causing a problem, so Tech B is tried, but that only makes things worse, so then Tech C is tried, but, nope, etc., etc., until finally someone decides to try Tech X and, huzzah!, problem solved.

In short, it's just Mad Libs. Fill in the nouns and verbs and voila. Stuff happens but it doesn't mean anything.

If I might be so bold, I'd suggest reading through the Fan Film Writer's Primer (link), as a lot of what could be said about plot and theme and structure is discussed at some length therein.

One additional comment re the lengthy opening and the backstory intertitles: you are presuming that all that information matters to the viewer or to the story you're telling. I don't think it does. And even if it were, the particulars in a giant infodump like are going to be largely forgotten before the story even starts.

 

[GSchnitzer]

Raymar3d: Maurice is right: two posts in a row is the limit, please. Use the muktiquote function if you need to respond to multiple posts, rather than make multiple posts your self. From the FAQ file:

"Do not post more than twice in a row in the same thread. If you need to answer more than one person in the thread, please use the quote function."

Fair warning.

 

[Raymar3d]

I will endeavor to refrain from doing that. My first post disappeared as soon as I tried to post it, which was annoying and the reason I didn't put it all in one the second time around, LOL!

Anyhow, I don't think the whole thing was about the technobabble, despite what you said. However, I will consider it for future stories. Perhaps I don't see it that way because of years of being in technical support. It is standard operational procedure to have a problem, try a solution and if it doesn't work, try something else. The problem is, if I didn't do that, I'd get the complaint that they didn't try everything or that the magical solution at the end didn't have any significance and that it was blind luck. I put in other elements to have some character interplay and that gets looked at like it is out of place. I will suggest that people have become rather jaded. I don't mean that to be offensive, but in all honesty, this seems to be damned if I do, damned if I don't. So at the end of the day, I will take into consideration the comments, because I do care, but what can I do but do my own personal best?

There are many films out there that don't have half as much going on as this one did. I am not sure that's a good or bad thing, it just is what it is. A lot of people take on less ambitious first efforts, and some spend half a million dollars. I am a guy who has a hobby and did this out of my house with a greenscreen and had to construct at least 95% of this from nothing. It may not be a diamond, or even a cubic zirconium, but it isn't a lump of coal in a pressure cooker either. Felt like it at times.

I'm happy if some people enjoyed it. And regardless of whether or not it was a hit with everyone, I hope it was worth at least some of the time spent watching it. I know you have to get used to new people and new characters, and it is a tough balance between showing and telling. In a shuttlecraft, there's not a lot of room for action. I still tried to get some in there.

Anyhow, that's pretty much what I had to say. Thank you all for your input and I will still be here if you want to talk more about it. Try giving the audio episodes a listen. Maybe it will improve your outlook on my project. It'll either help or seal my fate, I suppose.

Peace!

Ken

 

[Maurice]

I tweeted this recently:

The miracle of digital video is that anyone can make a #movie. The Hell of digital video is that anyone can make a movie.

It also relates to something an editor of mine used to say about desktop publishing. To paraphrase:

Desktop publishing gives everyone the tools of a print shop but none of the training of a typesetter.

And this is what happens with fanfilms. It's not an indictment, it's just a fact about first timers in anything.

In short, the digital revolution gives almost anyone access to the tools of filmmakers, musicians, typesetters, etc., but having the tools doesn't include experience, training, or even passing knowledge of the hows and whys of the craft.

Screenwriting is a complicated art. Cinematography is full of rules which are there because, like sentence structure, there is a common language in film, and the better you speak it the more effective your film is. Editing has its own mechanics (continuity v. relational editing, progressive v. regressive shot assembly, etc.). All of these are likely invisible to the dilettante, so you should not be surprised that you're tripping over them. Almost everyone does. The trick is to admit you're starting from zero and not be defensive. The first time you play a musical instrument you're probably going to hit almost every note wrong. Making a movie is no different.

So, instead of inveighing against criticisms why not use this as an opportunity to get a crash course? Instead of making it the viewer's fault ("Maybe its not deep enough for you"), be open to hearing what you might be doing wrong and use that to make your next effort a huge improvement over your first.

 

[USS Intrepid]

I just wanted to chip in and say I can relate to where Ken's coming from. Having made a lot of the same mistakes (some still to this day) I'll admit it's not always easy to hear the criticism. Often, much of the comments people make are things you're aware of already, and it can be frustrating to have someone hold them up for you.

Learning to accept that criticism is never easy. And learning to put aside your gut reaction to it is similarly difficult (believe me, I know). But if you can do that, there's often a lot of helpful advice out there. There are always people who will be mean, and I personally think I'm getting better at ignoring them, but I try very hard to listen to and learn from the constructive criticism, but it's an ongoing battle with my frequently-bruised ego to be sure.

Anyway, my point is, don't think people are trying to put you down, Ken, I think you'll find Maurice and many others here genuinely want to see you grow and continue. And I hope you'll take their words in the spirit they're offered.

For my part, I just want to congratulate you on finishing this and getting it out there. We all know it's not easy, and most people can't even do that. I look forward to seeing what you do next.

 

[Maurice]

I think that having a detailed backstory is critical to the success of a script and subsequent production when you as the writer know what is driving the character(s).

I actually somewhat disagree with that. I think extensive backstories can become a crutch. Some background is good, as in key life events that can affect the decisions they make, but knowing who the character is, what they want, their personality traits and so on is much more important and useful than knowing they had 2 sisters and one brother, won the 9th grade science fair and was assigned to the USS Lollypop until things got sticky.

 

[Raymar3d]

I just wanted to chip in and say I can relate to where Ken's coming from. Having made a lot of the same mistakes (some still to this day) I'll admit it's not always easy to hear the criticism. Often, much of the comments people make are things you're aware of already, and it can be frustrating to have someone hold them up for you.

Learning to accept that criticism is never easy. And learning to put aside your gut reaction to it is similarly difficult (believe me, I know). But if you can do that, there's often a lot of helpful advice out there. There are always people who will be mean, and I personally think I'm getting better at ignoring them, but I try very hard to listen to and learn from the constructive criticism, but it's an ongoing battle with my frequently-bruised ego to be sure.

Anyway, my point is, don't think people are trying to put you down, Ken, I think you'll find Maurice and many others here genuinely want to see you grow and continue. And I hope you'll take their words in the spirit they're offered.

For my part, I just want to congratulate you on finishing this and getting it out there. We all know it's not easy, and most people can't even do that. I look forward to seeing what you do next.

Thanks Nick. It is hard when people assume you are a novice just because it is your first release. Never mind that my IMDB list is just as extensive and that I have a degree in the field, or that I have written over twenty novels, unpublished though they may be. I have as of yet not attempted to sell them. I've pitched scripts to Star Trek: Voyager, and while they're a hard sell, at least I got in the door. TWICE.

Finishing a film in a year when it is almost all VFX shots and not only that, but writing and acting in it is not something just anyone can do as you well know. Having done this, I certainly have a far greater appreciation for what you've gone through to make Intrepid successful. (Not that I lacked appreciation, but now it is very well realized and deeply understood. )

Thanks,

Ken

I think that having a detailed backstory is critical to the success of a script and subsequent production when you as the writer know what is driving the character(s).

I actually somewhat disagree with that. I think extensive backstories can become a crutch. Some background is good, as in key life events that can affect the decisions they make, but knowing who the character is, what they want, their personality traits and so on is much more important and useful than knowing they had 2 sisters and one brother, won the 9th grade science fair and was assigned to the USS Lollypop until things got sticky.

I agree if they're ridiculously too detailed. General layout of the character's backstory can be helpful if you don't spend too much time on telling that information instead of telling a story. Some is okay. And the more detailed you make it, the more potentially constricting it can be. When I do backstory, I actually write a whole story if it is relevant, otherwise it is a list of rough chronology at most and not set in stone. Certain events might be pivotal, for example Kirk's history on Tarsus IV as it related to Kodos the Executioner, or his history on the Farragut related to Captain Garrovick's death in "Obsession." But that was probably not planned at the beginning of the character, either. Some idea is a good thing. For me, my character's upbringing is somewhat important, and I have a general idea of his early years in Starfleet and his more recent years, based on other stories I've written. But I'm careful to not set it in stone as it can hamper a good story.

 

[Maurice]

Never mind that my IMDB list is just as extensive and that I have a degree in the field, or that I have written over twenty novels, unpublished though they may be. I have as of yet not attempted to sell them. I've pitched scripts to Star Trek: Voyager, and while they're a hard sell, at least I got in the door. TWICE.

You mean this IMDB? (link)
Since you decided to mention your C.V., I'm curious what "degree in the field" you have. Care to elaborate?

 

[MikeH92467]

If there's a difference of opinion between me and Maurice, defer to Maurice. Seriously. He's the professional. I won't admit to total ignorance, but when you have someone who does it for a living offering advice, that's the best source. I will say that if you don't have enough backstory you run the risk of what one expert calls "spaghetting out" where the story just drifts into a tangled mess. Ken, you've shown that you have the drive and deterimination to get a show done and released. That's massive. I'm hoping you also have the ability to process feedback (internal and external) and take the next step. I'm pulling for you and I"m sure most everyone here is as well.

 

[Raymar3d]

Never mind that my IMDB list is just as extensive and that I have a degree in the field, or that I have written over twenty novels, unpublished though they may be. I have as of yet not attempted to sell them. I've pitched scripts to Star Trek: Voyager, and while they're a hard sell, at least I got in the door. TWICE.

You mean this IMDB? (link)
Since you decided to mention your C.V., I'm curious what "degree in the field" you have. Care to elaborate?

Sometimes people misspell names. Note that they put a 'p' in Thomson. This is my main IMDB page.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0860953/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

I have tried to get the credits corrected, but I'm still waiting.

I have a Bachelor of Arts in Communications, Radio Television and Film.

 

[Raymar3d]

I thought about folding this into the Fan Filmmaker's Primer topic, but concluded that the filmmaker's thread should be about the film production end and that the topic of scripting and writing really needed its own topic.

So, to kick this off, let's talk about a topic that was brought up several times in other threads of late (such as this one)...


The Three-Act Structure

A structure which is the basis for most modern storytelling in the western world. It divides the story into three sections, each of which has a particular sort-of meta function.

1. First Act = Introduction
2. Second Act = Complication
3. Third Act = Resolution

Here are some simple to peruse examples and descriptions:

• A Syd Field breakdown of three act structure. Click on the links there for more details.
• A Wikipedia entry on Three Act Structure.
• Yet another example.

As with any rules for a creative process there's controversy about if Three-Act Structure is always a good thing, or anything but arbitrary.

Personally, I think a lot of writers use the Three-Act Structure because adhering to it gives stories a logical flow and helps avoid problems that are rampant in fan films: like deus ex machina solutions and unfocused storylines. As such, I recommend applying it to your scripts until it's second nature. At that point you can make educated decisions about something that you might think works better.

Sure, rules can seem stifling to creativity, and they can sometimes lead to predictability. HOWEVER, if you don't really understand such rules you won't be able to make educated choices about when and how to break them.

I could expound on this topic for a dozen paragraphs, but I'll wait to read some of your comments and thoughts before diving deeper.

​

SIDEBAR: TV Script Acts v. Three Act Structure

The "acts" in most TV scripts have nothing to do with the Three Act structure and everything to do with commercial breaks. So, a TOS script would contain a TEASER and FOUR ACTS. A TNG or DS9 script would contain a TEASER and FIVE ACTS.

Despite these scripts having five or six or whatever act breaks, the stories generally will follow the rules of three act structure. What differs is that at each commercial break there must be a dramatic "hook" to keep the viewer from changing the channel.

For this reason, I'll try to be consistent and always refer to TV teleplay acts in the form of Act 1, Act 2, etc., and three act structure in the form of First Act, Second Act, etc.
​

A structure which is the basis for most modern storytelling in the western world. It divides the story into three sections, each of which has a particular sort-of meta function.

1. First Act = Introduction
2. Second Act = Complication
3. Third Act = Resolution

Okay, in my film, the first act is introducing the situation with the Klingons and rescuing the commodore and our disappearance. We work to figure out what is going on, where we are and ways to resolve the problem.

Second, we have a problem with a patient who is in dire need of medical help, we can't control our travel through space, so we make an effort to try something to resolve the situation. It fails, a creature appears and complicates the situation.

Third act, we work together with the Antyllus to get out of the mess.

I am not seeing how I am not following this method.

Another thing, let's talk about technobabble one more time. Break the word apart, you get tech and babble. Tech of course being something based on a technical issue, whether technology or a situation that can be resolved through the use of it.

Babble defined as a verb:
verb
verb: babble; 3rd person present: babbles; past tense: babbled; past participle: babbled; gerund or present participle: babbling

1. 1.
   talk rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited, or incomprehensible way.
   
   And as a noun: noun
   noun: babble
   1. 1.
      the sound of people talking quickly and in a way that is difficult or impossible to understand.
      
      technobabble
      
      http://static.sfdict.com/staticrep/dictaudio/NEW2014/t0776921.mp3
      
      
      [tek-noh-bab-uh l] /ˈtɛk noʊˌbæb əl/
      SpellSyllables
      
      
      • Examples
      • Word Origin
      
      noun 1. incomprehensible technical language or jargon.
      
      technobabble
      
      The excessive use of Internet jargon and high technology terminology, especially when used to intimidate inexperienced computer users.
      
      Here's the rub. None of my technical information was either of those things, any more than the way Spock or Harris explained their technical information to the other characters. Aside from the audio issues, which I will grant exist, did you at any time have a problem UNDERSTANDING what was going on? If not, then the babble comment means nothing. If so then to you it is babble. However, it's pretty elementary so I doubt you had an issue understanding it. And by that token, it is not made up jargon, and therefore quite valid.
      
      
      
      
   
   
   
   
   

 

[USS Intrepid]

I'm not sure what the objection is to the comment about technobabble. Whether it is canon made up jargon or not, it's still technobabble. It's still technobabble when they do it on the actual show, and that's long been the accepted term for it. Heck, even the people on the show who wrote it refer to it as technobabble. It's also a common criticism of the officially-produced shows, and one I tend to agree with (though not always, there are occasions it has been used to good effect).

It's also a trap I've fallen into on occasion, and try very hard to steer away from these days.

 

[Maurice]

Raymar3d, your post above doesn't jibe with the following:

...That said, constructive criticism can make a real difference in a re-edit if anyone feels inclined to give me your honest thoughts. I will listen.

Yet the tone of your replies to critiques, here, on YouTube and on Facebook is flat out defensive. Heck, you went so far as to pro-actively grab a quote about three act structure from another thread, drop it here and insist you're doing it right... before anyone even mentioned three act structure at all.

Look, I'm always happy to help people, as many here can testify to (I even had someone here hire me to critique a script) and as I humbly submit the years of effort I've put into the Primer threads prove. But helping people requires them to both genuinely want assistance and be open to hearing critiques without trying to argue them down.

That's not the case here.

 

[Raymar3d]

Raymar3d, your post above doesn't jibe with the following:

...That said, constructive criticism can make a real difference in a re-edit if anyone feels inclined to give me your honest thoughts. I will listen.

Yet the tone of your replies to critiques, here, on YouTube and on Facebook is flat out defensive. Heck, you went so far as to pro-actively grab a quote about three act structure from another thread, drop it here and insist you're doing it right... before anyone even mentioned three act structure at all.

Look, I'm always happy to help people, as many here can testify to (I even had someone here hire me to critique a script) and as I humbly submit the years of effort I've put into the Primer threads prove. But helping people requires them to both genuinely want assistance and be open to hearing critiques without trying to argue them down.

That's not the case here.

I'll accept that if your intent is to help me improve. I'm not trying to argue anyone down. However the way you have said things to me seems extremely condescending. I'd like to think better of you than that because when we worked together on Exeter I never got that vibe. But from the moment this film came out, I have been criticized more for my 'lack of skill' than ever before. When you imply I have no experience and no training and no writing skills, I cannot help but take it as an insult whether you intend it that way or not. I don't know who entered the "Tressaurian Intersection" listings on IMDB, but it was done correctly, and you know I worked on that with you, so taking that incorrect IMDB and offering it up as my 'resume' by itself can only be taken as a dig or at least a lack of attention by omission. I mean dig after dig is getting old, implying things that are simply untrue. It just comes off as pretentious. I say that so you will know what I am reacting to, not to make you angry. Perception is reality to some. You perceive me as defensive an obstinate, and yet I am seeing it more as not wanting to be talked down to. It has almost nothing to do with my film at this point.

You ask me to take criticism, fine. But consider this....

I've been around the block many times and there is an extreme difference between considerate desire to help and belittling someone. A lot of people feel that tearing someone down makes themselves look superior, whether consciously or not. It doesn't. When I critique someone's work, I look first at what they did right and build them up. At that point, they'll consider what they could improve. You don't go in daggers stabbing and expect someone to give you an ear as if you are God's gift to filmmaking. Do you not see that? If you want to make someone defensive right off the bat, go in guns blazing.

I mean, everyone has room to improve. Once I was done with this film, I knew where it lacked. Production problems are my own issue as far as what was written vs. what I had to work with and I make no excuses there. But a lot of things did have to be reworked on the edit table as nothing ever really goes quite as planned. Regardless of that, you know exactly what it is like to have to construct things from scenes that were not filmed. It is an extreme challenge. Act IV of "Tressaurian Intersection" was missing footage because it had already been used to complete previous acts, delaying its release for years. You and Scott did a great job of bringing it to a conclusion and finally getting it done. The point is, everything you have to do in the edit bay is triage and if the end result is exactly like the script, it is pretty miraculous. That said, people only care about the final result and will judge based on that and that alone. It's the curse of filmmaking and art in general.

I've worked in the television industry. I've worked on 23 video games and simulations, I have worked on Battlestar Galactica and multiple Star Trek fan films. I've worked on movies and while they're low budget, they're still films. I have worked with many professionals, and the mark of a true professional is to first help, then critique. If you truly want to help, then you have to do it in a way that doesn't demean someone's efforts. You don't have to sugarcoat, but at the same time, dismissiveness is not helpful. Dismissiveness is just insulting and you close people up right off the bat by doing it. It is one of the greatest insults you can throw at an artist. And you as an artist yourself should realize this and not be surprised that someone reacts negatively toward that attitude.

Discussion is not defensiveness either, just because it is counter to your points. I quoted the thread you sent me a link to so you would know I read it. You made a point, I made a counter point. That isn't arguing in my book it is discussing it to get to the real middle of the road where we can find some sort of common ground. If that's possible.

The point is, you can't help me by insulting me. It is certainly fair if you have no idea I've done those things to question whether I am a novice or not. I'd like to think that it's at least good enough that I don't look like a novice, considering just how much work it was to do this. But it's not like you and I really know each other just because we worked on one scene of a movie once, over a year ago now, but the point is, you assume a lot about me you don't know.

So now you do, and if you really want to help, please don't be condescending toward me. If you feel it isn't worth the time, that's cool too. Live and let live. I have nothing against you. I don't offer any of this as an attack against you, only so you will understand where I am frankly, frustrated. I just don't want to be talked down to. Fair enough?

Peace,

Ken

 

[Karzak]

I'll accept that if your intent is to help me improve. I'm not trying to argue anyone down. However the way you have said things to me seems extremely condescending.

Frankly, I don't read Maurice's comments here that way at all. You are being entirely too sensitive here.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Maurice may be called many things, condescending is not one of them. I think this is a just a misunderstanding.

I just wanted to add, Maurice can be blunt, but I know him well enough to read his tone, and I can assure you he is not being condescending or mean here. On the other hand, I don't know you that well Ken, and if I'm going to be honest I do get a sense of defensiveness from your posts. Again, to be fair, I may well be misreading that because I don't know you well enough, but we all know how easy it is to misread tone on on the internet.

 

[Raymar3d]

Maurice may be called many things, condescending is not one of them. I think this is a just a misunderstanding.

I just wanted to add, Maurice can be blunt, but I know him well enough to read his tone, and I can assure you he is not being condescending or mean here. On the other hand, I don't know you that well Ken, and if I'm going to be honest I do get a sense of defensiveness from your posts. Again, to be fair, I may well be misreading that because I don't know you well enough, but we all know how easy it is to misread tone on on the internet.

I'll wait to see what he says, Nick. I simply posted how I feel about the situation. If I am overly defensive, it is due to my interpretation of the discussion. I'd much rather have a face to face talk with a person than do back and forth posts on the internet because as you said, tone can't be read from words alone.

You've always been a pretty fair guy as far as I can tell. I'm going to wait and see, and if I have misjudged the situation, I'm sorry. Ball is in Maurice's court at this point, regarding all this. And I truly mean no ill will here. I only want to make Trek and enjoy Trek made by others. That's it. I have met Maurice in person and he seems like a nice guy, so that's why I was somewhat taken aback by the tone I was reading here. Let's just see how it goes. I'm not interested in conflict, and if it is a misunderstanding, I'd honestly rather bury the hatchet immediately and get past it and forget it.

 

[Maurice]

Ken, I'm sorry if you've taken what were intended as benign but forthright comments as some kind of attack. Your lengthy reply indicated you were unprepared for some of the criticism that's come your way.

I hasten to point out that I'm not one of those people who's apparently torn your project or you a new hole. In fact, the only things I really criticized were the technobabble, the puzzle-box nature of the story, and the sound—which objectively speaking IS a trainwreck.

Since "taking that incorrect IMDB and offering it up as my 'resume' by itself can only be taken as a dig or at least a lack of attention by omission,” (emphasis mine) ergo I'm either mean or careless, as it's apparently impossible that I merely asked an innocent question. You decide which.

 

[Raymar3d]

Ken, I'm sorry if you've taken what were intended as benign but forthright comments as some kind of attack. Your lengthy reply indicated you were unprepared for some of the criticism that's come your way.

I hasten to point out that I'm not one of those people who's apparently torn your project or you a new hole. In fact, the only things I really criticized were the technobabble, the puzzle-box nature of the story, and the sound—which objectively speaking IS a trainwreck.

Since "taking that incorrect IMDB and offering it up as my 'resume' by itself can only be taken as a dig or at least a lack of attention by omission,” (emphasis mine) ergo I'm either mean or careless, as it's apparently impossible that I merely asked an innocent question. You decide which.

Okay, I'm sorry for overreacting. I accept that you didn't intend to be hurtful. Let's just forget about it. I hate the Internet.