Which productions just "stick the landing" with you?

[Phantom]

Continues comes in a close 2nd within the bounds of their "make it like the 60s" mandate.

I'd put STC in "first place" right now based simply on their having delivered a complete product at this point. Too soon to be comparing Axanar on that basis, since all it has at this point is a sliver of footage and an (of course impressive) proof of concept video. But I'd agree that STC delivers something simply watchable as television in a way nobody would be trying to question, diminish or dismiss if it weren't a fan production. It's admittedly weird to see the "diminish/dismiss" instinct so strong, to the point almost of ridiculousness, on a Fan Production forum on a Trek board.

Agreed basically on all points. I think the distinction I was trying to make is that Continues has a mandate to faithfully re-create 60s era special effects shots, which means they look like 60s era special effects shots. Which is fine, since that is what they set out to do. Axanar, in my book gets more points for seeking to (and achieving) a "more realistic" FX aesthetic. The ships look like ships, not stage models of ships.

Does that make my position clearer?

 

[Maurice]

Axanar's ships look like CGI ships to my eye. Models of a different sort, but models nevertheless.

And me, the only time I ever feel like I'm watching "real Star Trek" (whatever that means) in a fanfilm is when I actually stop noticing that it's a fanfilm, which almost never happens, because of all the nods and winks and continuity porn, the clumsy scripts, and the bungling of basic cinematography rules. There are a few rare exceptions, but even the best have a moment or two which smack me upside the head and scream FAAAAAAAANFILM!

 

[BigJake]

Axanar, in my book gets more points for seeking to (and achieving) a "more realistic" FX aesthetic. The ships look like ships, not stage models of ships.

Does that make my position clearer?

Yeah, fair enough.

 

[fireproof78]

Continues comes in a close 2nd within the bounds of their "make it like the 60s" mandate.

I'd put STC in "first place" right now based simply on their having delivered a complete product at this point. Too soon to be comparing Axanar on that basis, since all it has at this point is a sliver of footage and an (of course impressive) proof of concept video. But I'd agree that STC delivers something simply watchable as television in a way nobody would be trying to question, diminish or dismiss if it weren't a fan production. It's admittedly weird to see the "diminish/dismiss" instinct so strong, to the point almost of ridiculousness, on a Fan Production forum on a Trek board.

Agreed basically on all points. I think the distinction I was trying to make is that Continues has a mandate to faithfully re-create 60s era special effects shots, which means they look like 60s era special effects shots. Which is fine, since that is what they set out to do. Axanar, in my book gets more points for seeking to (and achieving) a "more realistic" FX aesthetic. The ships look like ships, not stage models of ships.

Does that make my position clearer?

I think I understand your position, but I just don't share the same feeling about it. Fan productions sit on a certain tier and I judge them on their own, individual, merits.

Regardless of how faithful a production tries to be to the era a show was produced in, or the FX or costuming, or the like, I personally there is a tonal issue that stands out to me. Maurice addresses this in his post, but the more I think about it, the more I think that insistence upon faithful recreation is still colored by a certain level of "fan goggles" (for want of a better term) that the original productions did not have. They original shows and movies really didn't have that "We're making Star Trek!" vibe that is not a part of the original production.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that fact, but a fan production is still one that treats Star Trek as a fan and not a job. So, the tonal difference always stands out to me.

 

[Treadwell]

You asked if any of the fan films I've seen have produced anything that I considered to be as good as "Real" Star Trek.

My answer was "No. They're fan films."

I don't know how much more clear I could have been.

I have no dog in this, but at the risk of pedantry, the question was not "if any".

The question was "which". Since you have no selection at all, the post was not answering the question and thus I can understand if Phantom felt it was not in the spirit of the thread.

 

[martok2112]

Here's the thing about some fan-films:

They are nothing but exercises in egocentric masturbation for the fans making them.


Using Star Trek as an example, essentially, their mentality is:
"I don't like the direction that Star Trek has taken! I am going to take it upon myself to show true fans that true Star Trek still exists, and can continue. Only we, the true fans know how to make Star Trek stories and movies any more!"

And of course they'll pander to the JJ haters. To be fair, the reverse could be said of strict JJ fans in regard to the new universe.

Without meaning to go into an anti-fan rant, the thing is, fans seem to mistakenly think that they know a property that they have no ownership to better than those who actually own it. It is their own folly, and a lot of times, it shows in their fanworks.

I can enjoy such efforts....but I cannot take them seriously. Not with those mindsets.

 

[fireproof78]

You asked if any of the fan films I've seen have produced anything that I considered to be as good as "Real" Star Trek.

My answer was "No. They're fan films."

I don't know how much more clear I could have been.

I have no dog in this, but at the risk of pedantry, the question was not "if any".

The question was "which". Since you have no selection at all, the post was not answering the question and thus I can understand if Phantom felt it was not in the spirit of the thread.

At the risk of being both augmentative and pedantic, I thought that "none of the above" would be a legitimate answer to the question.

Though, I will understand Phantom's thinking it was not in the spirit of his original question.

Which was also why I started expanding my thoughts on fan film critique in another thread.

 

[Treadwell]

I'm reminded of the old "mom fixing dinner" thing:

Mom: "You want spaghetti or chicken?"
Kid: "Pancakes!"
Mom: "So, spaghetti or chicken?"

 

[fireproof78]

I'm reminded of the old "mom fixing dinner" thing:

Mom: "You want spaghetti or chicken?"
Kid: "Pancakes!"
Mom: "So, spaghetti or chicken?"

As a parent, I know this all too well.

Also, this...

 

[Jedman67]

I listen to a lot of audio books, maybe that makes it easier to accept one voice for all characters.

Let me ask it this way, if you had seen it as a script or novelization, would you have been as equally off-put by the material?

I found his pacing, character drawing, etc to have nailed the TNG style down almost perfectly. Even where he makes use of fannish concepts like "line lifting", he does it so deftly and appropriately that it doesn't feel out of place.

Visually, he took exquisite care to precisely re-create camera angles, shot construction, etc, even the use of "clips" (specific scenes and elements) just as the Paramount production did and would have done.

I can't speak about what may or may not have happened in another forum. I know some people trolled him rather viciously over his choice not to re-cast and they still do from time to time on his You Tube pages.

Originally, using his own voice only was meant to be a placeholder; and later retroactively became a creative decision. He does quite well with the tools at his disposal; making Poser 4 models look good is quite an achievement.
I did look at some of his scene scripts and occasionally offered some edits and feedback on the project threads. I don't usually read scripts, and I rarely ever listen to audiobooks, so it does come across a little off. I think i watched the first movie whole; can't recall if i saw any of the others aside from bits and pieces under construction. If he did make a novelization, and it was good, i'd probably enjoy it (except i don't read star trek novels ).

There is a difference between weekend warriors and people who commit their entire lives to their craft.

What makes the professionals stick out above fan films is that dedication of years, and in most instances decades.

Want to make a fan film come off badly? Mix real actors with amateurs. Mix people who have dedicated their lives to acting with people who do it for a hobby. You see this in new professional sports leagues where there are a few NFL caliber players mixed with people who should be working in the insurance industry. Renegades was a great example where good actors were let down by the amateur actors and a poor script written by someone who hasn't perfected his craft.

The difference between Vic Mignogna, James Cawley and Chris Pine? The first two are doing imitations of Shatner playing Kirk, Pine actually is informing his performance with a decade-plus of acting experience, working and learning from other professionals (actors, writers, directors). It isn't a knock against Mignogna and Cawley. But there really seems to be very little of them in their performances.

YMMV.

I didn't care much for Chris Pine's Kirk, although it was certainly original. Too much 'spoiled brat', though thats probably more a scripting problem than acting.

Axanar's ships look like CGI ships to my eye. Models of a different sort, but models nevertheless.

And me, the only time I ever feel like I'm watching "real Star Trek" (whatever that means) in a fanfilm is when I actually stop noticing that it's a fanfilm, which almost never happens, because of all the nods and winks and continuity porn, the clumsy scripts, and the bungling of basic cinematography rules. There are a few rare exceptions, but even the best have a moment or two which smack me upside the head and scream FAAAAAAAANFILM!

I watched one or two episodes of STC. As far as i'm concerned, they have near-industry quality production values. OTOH, i generally agree with Karzak on all fanfilms: They are not, and cannot be "real" Trek; as that requires a license from CBS. Axanar interests me because of the quality of the Prelude movie; i dont usually have the time or interest to get into watching fanfilms, no matter how well done.

Maurice: Case in point: Generations.

 

[Maurice]

Maurice: Case in point: Generations.

Not a damned clue what you mean.

 

[BigJake]

They are nothing but exercises in egocentric masturbation for the fans making them.

The entertainment industry is "an exercise in egocentric masturbation." It has to be for people to be willing to go through the shit necessary to produce a viable product, fanfilm or otherwise. Everything else is detail.

The question was "which". Since you have no selection at all, the post was not answering the question and thus I can understand if Phantom felt it was not in the spirit of the thread.

+1.

Honestly the more I read here, there's some people where I kind of don't understand what they're getting out of this forum, since they seem largely to be posting in it either to constantly remind the rest of us that they don't like or respect the bulk of fan films, or to remind us incessantly that they Totes Know the Difference between professional films and fan films. To each their own, I guess, but I don't get it.

 

[martok2112]

They are nothing but exercises in egocentric masturbation for the fans making them.

The entertainment industry is "an exercise in egocentric masturbation." It has to be for people to be willing to go through the shit necessary to produce a viable product, fanfilm or otherwise. Everything else is detail.

Then Gene Roddenberry and JJ Abrams are brothers in arms.

The question was "which". Since you have no selection at all, the post was not answering the question and thus I can understand if Phantom felt it was not in the spirit of the thread.

+1.

Honestly the more I read here, there's some people where I kind of don't understand what they're getting out of this forum, since they seem largely to be posting in it either to constantly remind the rest of us that they don't like or respect the bulk of fan films, or to remind us incessantly that they Totes Know the Difference between professional films and fan films. To each their own, I guess, but I don't get it.

Because on the surface, this is another "Real Trek/True Fans" thread. . The question posed relates to only Prime Universe Trek projects, with no mention or accommodation for JJ Abrams-era Star Trek, which Phantom (to my recollection) dislikes. (Not a personal statement against Phantom...but it is an old story...same with several other members who like to spam with "Real Trek/True Fans/I hate JJ Trek" threads.

He buried the lead with "WOW! I just watched Real Trek!"

IOW: Same whore, different dress

Next.

 

[BigJake]

Then Gene Roddenberry and JJ Abrams are brothers in arms.

Zigackly. So is anyone who picks up a camera or a pen.

Because on the surface, this is another "Real Trek/True Fans" thread. . The question posed relates to only Prime Universe Trek project

Uh, no it doesn't. The question is about fanfilms. It just pisses you off that the OP likes certain types of fanfilms, which actually is not that interesting.

 

[martok2112]

Then Gene Roddenberry and JJ Abrams are brothers in arms.

Zigackly. So is anyone who picks up a camera or a pen.

Well then.....we are agreed.

Because on the surface, this is another "Real Trek/True Fans" thread. . The question posed relates to only Prime Universe Trek project

Uh, no it doesn't. The question is about fanfilms. It just pisses you off that the OP likes certain types of fanfilms, which actually is not that interesting.

What a misread about my character. I am not pissed at all, my friend. In fact, honestly, I am amused.

Look...the question itself is worthy, but it is still mired in the "Real Trek/True Fans" stench. I answered it honestly, but also had to call it for what it was.

 

[BigJake]

As you say, then.

 

[Karzak]

You asked if any of the fan films I've seen have produced anything that I considered to be as good as "Real" Star Trek.

My answer was "No. They're fan films."

I don't know how much more clear I could have been.

I have no dog in this, but at the risk of pedantry, the question was not "if any".

The question was "which". Since you have no selection at all, the post was not answering the question and thus I can understand if Phantom felt it was not in the spirit of the thread.

Semantics. "None of the above" is a perfectly legitimate answer.

 

[martok2112]

As you say, then.

You may have it as you wish. You have your opinion, I have mine, my friend.

I will say this:
I am continually amazed at the tools available for Joe Average Consumer to make fanfilms of different types.....CG tools, practical models, hi def cameras, high quality editing programs, etc. The use of professional actors aside...the quality of fanfilm production values have come a LONG way. And now, with 3D scanners and 3D printers available...the playing field is even wider for both CG and practical modelers. All told, it is a great time to be a fan film/tribute film maker.

And I do admire those who are able to build pretty exacting replicas of sets from the various shows....mostly TOS. I don't think I've seen very many TNG set builds.... but then again, I don't watch that many fanfilms, again, unless they are of the CG or practical model starship porn variety. (I've seen some pretty impressive reproductions/interesting takes on the opening Klingon battle against V'ger from TMP).

 

[Jay]

Why is it only NV/P2 has actually hired (or I guess asked but not paid for?) scripts from actual Star Trek writers? Someone said "Going Boldly" made their list and I didn't know what that was so I went and watched it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xim_PuEgRRc

That's the link. It's fantastic. I mean, it doesn't really have a plot, but Kirk sounds like Kirk to me here. I am going to assume it was written by David Gerrold? It doesn't say, but I will bet it's an actual Star Trek Writer. An example:

"The deepest wound, the most acute pain, is the loss of a comrade. We serve together, allied in desire and goal, bound together in spirit and purpose... Kindred, and so, kin. As we renew our vessel, let us renew our commitment to one another and to the memories of those who have completed their mortal journey as we so humbly endure ours. They must continue to remind us that humanity's strength is in its courage, the profundity of its spirit and the resilience of its will. It is in these memories we dedicate our continuing voyages."

THAT RIGHT THERE I can hear Kirk saying. Almost like the end of Star Trek II. I have yet to hear any show get that tone quite right except for that moment.

 

[Warped9]

^^ From what I understand SF auther Robert Sawyer (who had a cameo in STC's Ep. 4) pitched a story idea he was willing to write for STC but they turned it down apparently (something about having a bit too much in terms of continuity callouts so it didn't fit STC's overall approach).

Established SF writers might also be somewhat leary of investing time in their craft without getting paid. A story and script usually isn't something you knock off in a day or two or such. Some could also be leary of the possible impact on their reputations if they are seen willing to work for free for what are not generally seen as professional ventures.