Which productions just "stick the landing" with you?
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
Trek novelist Dave Galanter wrote the script.
My observation made on the script to Dave was that Kirk sounded a little flowery and erudite--more like Picard. If there are any Kirk qualities, it's the somewhat modified Kirk of the movie era, not the more original style Kirk from the TOS era. But I could only hope to write as well as Dave.
The Kirk subplot in Generations didn't work for me - it was fun, but basically meaningless. His inclusion in Generations was basically fanboyism by the producers.Maurice: Case in point: Generations.
Not a damned clue what you mean.
Not at all. I'd bet Rick Berman and company would've rather done their own movie. The Generations project came with a list of "must-have's" by Paramount.
"The Treussarian Intersection" is the closest to capturing that 60s look, feel and storytelling sensibility.
As much as I have enjoyed "New Voyages," a lot of their stories have felt like 90s/early-aughts Trek transposed onto the original show. It rarely feels like a show from the 60s.
"Continues" has shown potential with "Lolani" to tell meaningful stories, but has disappointed me with its later entries which were littered with fan fiction/film sensibilities — callbacks to other episodes, etc.
Wonder what the idea was and if the callouts could be removed. Because they'd be fools not to try to figure out how Sawyer's idea could work as a story that fits within their aesthetic.
Also, "Continues" last two stories were jammed with callouts to previous episodes, so how much worse could it have been?
As much as I have enjoyed "New Voyages," a lot of their stories have felt like 90s/early-aughts Trek transposed onto the original show. It rarely feels like a show from the 60s.
"Continues" has shown potential with "Lolani" to tell meaningful stories, but has disappointed me with its later entries which were littered with fan fiction/film sensibilities — callbacks to other episodes, etc.
Wonder what the idea was and if the callouts could be removed. Because they'd be fools not to try to figure out how Sawyer's idea could work as a story that fits within their aesthetic.
Also, "Continues" last two stories were jammed with callouts to previous episodes, so how much worse could it have been?
The point stands (it was sorta tongue in cheek) although the reasons for including Kirk was market share - appealing to TOS fans - more than expressing fanboyism. The effect was largely the same, and in my opinion detracted from the movie (there are plenty of other nitpicks in the Generations thread).
What do you mean specifically regarding "callouts" and "references"?
Didn't all trek series reference earlier events in many episodes?
(STC i only watched the "Mirror, Mirror" sequel in full. Haven't seen any of the other shows).
I haven't really watched post TOS Movie-Trek in some years, but I'm pretty sure when they would mention an event from a previous episode, they would show a clip of that event in the opening recap. In TOS I don't recall many references, except for one 3rd season episode where they mention the Organian Peace Treaty, but usually they have the characters explain its context somewhat.
In White Iris, they brought back many characters from Kirk's past (Edith Keeler, Miramanee and Rayna) without ever explaining who they were- though they took the time to explain a new character, Nakia.
The above is just one example...
Three of the STC episodes function effectively as "sequels" to earlier Trek episodes, which I agree is something of a drawback. It's most noticeable for me with "The White Iris," where I was at sea for a while because I couldn't remember the episode they were referencing.
I will admit, when making a fanwork, making references and nods to prior official Trek is seemingly an unavoidable and necessary evil. Even in my upcoming project, I end up paraphrasing a couple of lines or adapting a variation of a micro-occurrence for the story.
Even before I started dipping my toe in to the fan film/tribute film making pool (which sometimes can be a very cold sensation) I never really found such nods and winks to be "fanboyish".
Yes, it would be great to be able to pen a script/story and shoot a fan work without boldly falling back on where we've gone before, but sometimes, under the right circumstances, it helps to give an idea of just when a specific fan work may take place. It also helps for those viewers who may have only just recently gotten into Star Trek to get more of a feel for the wide universe into which they've stepped.
Starting from Star Trek the Motion Picture, forward, it's a little easier for the more expereienced Trek follower to know just when a story takes place, because the stardates start falling into a sense of order, rather than in TOS where the stardates seemed random.
When it comes to a tv series, be it loaded with stand-alones, (TOS/TAS/TNG--for the most part), or if they have broader story arcs (latter TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) the producers have neither the time, nor the inclination to get new viewers up to speed on the entirety of the Trek universe (same for any sci-fi or fantasy property with a rich and broad background). (That said, I have a feeling that when Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens comes out, it is going to be chock full of winks and nods and gentle hand holding exercises, beyond just the inclusion of the Millennium Falcon, and Han, Luke, and Leia....granted, some 30 years have passed since ROTJ.)
With fan works, one can afford to guide those fresh to the Trek experience with some references to prior official Trek. As long as they don't get carried away.
It's one thing to have a viewer say: "Ohhhhh....I see what you did there," having witnessed a nice, subtle nod to the official Trek. It's another when one goes overboard with the nostalgic references, and a viewer might be inclined to respond with something less charitable like: "Ok, enough with the winks and nods already! Write something original, dammit!"
I do know that that was the case for many when it came to STID.... and admittedly, for all of two minutes, even I felt as they did, but I got over it like Wolverine with a flesh wound. (But I digest.)
I'd say, don't be afraid to dip your foot into the Hot Tub Time Machine for Star Trek.....just don't hang on everything establised previously to sell your own story. Call upon the past when you must, but make sure your story stands well enough on its own.
Take this for what its worth, and with as much salt as necessary.
Even before I started dipping my toe in to the fan film/tribute film making pool (which sometimes can be a very cold sensation) I never really found such nods and winks to be "fanboyish".
Yes, it would be great to be able to pen a script/story and shoot a fan work without boldly falling back on where we've gone before, but sometimes, under the right circumstances, it helps to give an idea of just when a specific fan work may take place. It also helps for those viewers who may have only just recently gotten into Star Trek to get more of a feel for the wide universe into which they've stepped.
Starting from Star Trek the Motion Picture, forward, it's a little easier for the more expereienced Trek follower to know just when a story takes place, because the stardates start falling into a sense of order, rather than in TOS where the stardates seemed random.
When it comes to a tv series, be it loaded with stand-alones, (TOS/TAS/TNG--for the most part), or if they have broader story arcs (latter TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) the producers have neither the time, nor the inclination to get new viewers up to speed on the entirety of the Trek universe (same for any sci-fi or fantasy property with a rich and broad background). (That said, I have a feeling that when Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens comes out, it is going to be chock full of winks and nods and gentle hand holding exercises, beyond just the inclusion of the Millennium Falcon, and Han, Luke, and Leia....granted, some 30 years have passed since ROTJ.)
With fan works, one can afford to guide those fresh to the Trek experience with some references to prior official Trek. As long as they don't get carried away.
It's one thing to have a viewer say: "Ohhhhh....I see what you did there," having witnessed a nice, subtle nod to the official Trek. It's another when one goes overboard with the nostalgic references, and a viewer might be inclined to respond with something less charitable like: "Ok, enough with the winks and nods already! Write something original, dammit!"
I do know that that was the case for many when it came to STID.... and admittedly, for all of two minutes, even I felt as they did, but I got over it like Wolverine with a flesh wound. (But I digest.)
I'd say, don't be afraid to dip your foot into the Hot Tub Time Machine for Star Trek.....just don't hang on everything establised previously to sell your own story. Call upon the past when you must, but make sure your story stands well enough on its own.
Take this for what its worth, and with as much salt as necessary.
I haven't seen that one. I think I understand what you're getting; the rule of thumb should be "make a good story first" then if the story lets, you can do those nods and winks. I've only seen a few TOS episodes anyway.
Would a good example be (for Voyager watchers) the EMH sayings of "I'm a doctor, not a ____"?
No not really...It's the same thing as having a policeman in a crime drama saying: ''Yippy ki-yay, muther######'', ''I'll be back!!'', or ''Hasta la vista, Bay-bee!''
The bottom line is they're all still fan films.
Let's take for example one of the most despised hours of professionally produced Star Trek: "Shades of Gray" from The Next Generation.
"Shades of Gray" is better than just about every fan film ever made.
That's right, I said it.
While you recover from the effects of that phaser blast set to stun, I'll elaborate.
"Shades of Gray" may be a garbage script made on a short schedule, but it was still made by professionals who all knew their jobs. It was written under deadline and produced under deadline and delivered on time. And for all its shortcomings, from the perspective of considering these things from a production standpoint, (and when considering the obstacles it had going against it - namely the Writer's Guild strike of 1988), "Shades of Gray" is still leaps and bounds a better produced episode than any of the fan films.
This should not be some sort of cause for outrage. This should not be cause for hurt feelings. This is a plain and simple fact.
I admire greatly the fans who take it upon themselves to try to achieve in the world of film production and to do so in the world of Star Trek, but let's not kid ourselves. These are hobbyists practicing in a field usually in which they have no prior experience, much less money, and no real gauge in terms of quality control.
This should not be some sort of cause for outrage. This should not be cause for hurt feelings. This is a plain and simple fact.
Some do it better. Some don't. But none have achieved a look or feel that would, in my opinion, qualify as equal to a professionally produced episode of any of the series, and certainly not equivalent to any of the films.
The real bitch of it is that "Shades of Gray" falls under the distinct umbrella of "real Star Trek."
This should not be some sort of cause for outrage. This should not be cause for hurt feelings. This is a plain and simple fact.
Let's take for example one of the most despised hours of professionally produced Star Trek: "Shades of Gray" from The Next Generation.
"Shades of Gray" is better than just about every fan film ever made.
That's right, I said it.
While you recover from the effects of that phaser blast set to stun, I'll elaborate.
"Shades of Gray" may be a garbage script made on a short schedule, but it was still made by professionals who all knew their jobs. It was written under deadline and produced under deadline and delivered on time. And for all its shortcomings, from the perspective of considering these things from a production standpoint, (and when considering the obstacles it had going against it - namely the Writer's Guild strike of 1988), "Shades of Gray" is still leaps and bounds a better produced episode than any of the fan films.
This should not be some sort of cause for outrage. This should not be cause for hurt feelings. This is a plain and simple fact.
I admire greatly the fans who take it upon themselves to try to achieve in the world of film production and to do so in the world of Star Trek, but let's not kid ourselves. These are hobbyists practicing in a field usually in which they have no prior experience, much less money, and no real gauge in terms of quality control.
This should not be some sort of cause for outrage. This should not be cause for hurt feelings. This is a plain and simple fact.
Some do it better. Some don't. But none have achieved a look or feel that would, in my opinion, qualify as equal to a professionally produced episode of any of the series, and certainly not equivalent to any of the films.
The real bitch of it is that "Shades of Gray" falls under the distinct umbrella of "real Star Trek."
This should not be some sort of cause for outrage. This should not be cause for hurt feelings. This is a plain and simple fact.
Thanks! I for sure saw it as more like Kirk at the end of TWoK, but I figured with the music they were going for that. It didn't strike me like Picard at all.
I remember liking MOST of Enemy Starfleet. Are his books good?
+1
I don't know about these ''facts'' as you present them...
Let me give you an example: the 1968 movie Night of the Living Dead was made with a very inexperienced crew, a first-time feature film director co-writing his first longplay script, a fraction of a regular Hollywood feature budget. Oh, with no star actors as well.
I'll never say that NOTLD is better than 2001, a Space Odyssey or Planet of the Apes, two other releases from 1968, but damn it's got a lot of wonderfully composed shots, lots of quotable dialogue, a plotline that influenced decades of cinema and ignited a whole genre, symbolism up the wahoo...
And it has locked its position in cinema history for all time, while a truckful of professionally-made, SAG-accredited, union-approved Hollywood films of the time will never be remembered.
Lady in Cement? Paper Lion? Shalako?
Living Dead is a lot better than those...
Ask the older black population if they don't hold dear in their hearts the movie Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song, despite it being totally made just above amateurish levels...
Edit to add: I feel kind of insulted that you're saying Art can only be better if more money was used to make it...
I've worked on a project or two that would disagree with that...
Let me give you an example: the 1968 movie Night of the Living Dead was made with a very inexperienced crew, a first-time feature film director co-writing his first longplay script, a fraction of a regular Hollywood feature budget. Oh, with no star actors as well.
I'll never say that NOTLD is better than 2001, a Space Odyssey or Planet of the Apes, two other releases from 1968, but damn it's got a lot of wonderfully composed shots, lots of quotable dialogue, a plotline that influenced decades of cinema and ignited a whole genre, symbolism up the wahoo...
And it has locked its position in cinema history for all time, while a truckful of professionally-made, SAG-accredited, union-approved Hollywood films of the time will never be remembered.
Lady in Cement? Paper Lion? Shalako?
Living Dead is a lot better than those...
Ask the older black population if they don't hold dear in their hearts the movie Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song, despite it being totally made just above amateurish levels...
Edit to add: I feel kind of insulted that you're saying Art can only be better if more money was used to make it...
I've worked on a project or two that would disagree with that...
Last edited:
I only saw Shades of Gray once, so my memory is a little shaky. It was a clip show, with about five minutes of new material. I don't recall it being bad. But just like the first 34 minutes of SG:1 "Disclosure" it was just about entirely clip show, and for me personally quite boring. Both are higher quality than any fan production in either franchise.
Lets take "Justice" - which in my opinion stands as the worse episode of TNG. STC "Fairest of them All" in my opinion is superior in terms of story/plot, pacing and character development. Justice had better quality acting.
So which is "Objectively" better? You choose.
To be clear: Stating that the fan films will never be as good as any of the professionally produced episodes or films is not the same thing as saying the fan films are objectively bad. That was not the point I was making in my previous post.
It is an undeniable fact though that fan films are not going to ever be objectively in the same ballpark, quality-wise as the professionally produced episodes/films. It's a nice goal to aspire to, but I just don't see it being one that is possible to reach.
So much of the fan film mentality is just mired in nostalgia but also in reaction to the current crop of the official franchise's offerings. People like James Cawley and Robery Meyer Burnett (who despise the new films from Paramount) certainly have as one of their goals the idea that they are going to feed that "Let's give Trekkies back the Star Trek they love!" hunger and it colors largely and in broad strokes what their resulting films look like. Dressing it up as "real Star Trek" only makes it worse because that is something that remains unquantifiable; I certainly wouldn't say that New Voyages or Axanar constitute what I consider "real" Star Trek, but that's just my opinion. Others may. That's fine. But neither get Star Trek "right" in my experience.
Again, there's nothing wrong with any of that. It doesn't mean that what films they do produce are bad. It just means they are projects motivated by the fan desire to "correct" what they believe they license holders of the intellectual property have allegedly gotten "wrong." (If you don't accept that, ask yourself: How many fan films might we be enjoying today if 1990s Berman era Star Trek had continued through from 2005 till today?)
That's not a professional perspective. That's a fan perspective.
Going back to my previous post, it's also why you will have productions like Renegades and Axanar boasting their professionalism and professional assets yet Axanar can't even shoot a simple, single (green-screened) scene without jostling its sticks (that's a tripod, for the laymen reading this) in the middle of a shot. Sound editing on just about all the fan films has been consistently terrible, from no-budget offerings like Project: Potemkin all the way up to higher end shows like New Voyages.
The point is simple. Fan films are wonderful and I enjoy them greatly. But that doesn't mean they're perfect nor does it mean that even though they may shoot for the stars when they set out to make their projects a reality that they are going to come anywhere near the quality of broadcast television or feature films produced by a professional studio.
It is an undeniable fact though that fan films are not going to ever be objectively in the same ballpark, quality-wise as the professionally produced episodes/films. It's a nice goal to aspire to, but I just don't see it being one that is possible to reach.
So much of the fan film mentality is just mired in nostalgia but also in reaction to the current crop of the official franchise's offerings. People like James Cawley and Robery Meyer Burnett (who despise the new films from Paramount) certainly have as one of their goals the idea that they are going to feed that "Let's give Trekkies back the Star Trek they love!" hunger and it colors largely and in broad strokes what their resulting films look like. Dressing it up as "real Star Trek" only makes it worse because that is something that remains unquantifiable; I certainly wouldn't say that New Voyages or Axanar constitute what I consider "real" Star Trek, but that's just my opinion. Others may. That's fine. But neither get Star Trek "right" in my experience.
Again, there's nothing wrong with any of that. It doesn't mean that what films they do produce are bad. It just means they are projects motivated by the fan desire to "correct" what they believe they license holders of the intellectual property have allegedly gotten "wrong." (If you don't accept that, ask yourself: How many fan films might we be enjoying today if 1990s Berman era Star Trek had continued through from 2005 till today?)
That's not a professional perspective. That's a fan perspective.
Going back to my previous post, it's also why you will have productions like Renegades and Axanar boasting their professionalism and professional assets yet Axanar can't even shoot a simple, single (green-screened) scene without jostling its sticks (that's a tripod, for the laymen reading this) in the middle of a shot. Sound editing on just about all the fan films has been consistently terrible, from no-budget offerings like Project: Potemkin all the way up to higher end shows like New Voyages.
The point is simple. Fan films are wonderful and I enjoy them greatly. But that doesn't mean they're perfect nor does it mean that even though they may shoot for the stars when they set out to make their projects a reality that they are going to come anywhere near the quality of broadcast television or feature films produced by a professional studio.
Last edited:
Indeed.
Dat's what I been sayun'! (Oh, btw, prepare for a some browbeating.)Karzak said:
Dat's whut I been sayun, too! (Oh, btw, prepare for double the browbeating.)Karzak said:
Well told. It's one thing to embrace your limitations and tell the best story and show the best movie you can. I think more folk will appreciate that if you accept that your production has limitations that there just might be no way of getting around.Karzak said:
It's another if you think, despite your limitations: "This'll learn 'em all! This is how a Star Trek movie/episode is made! This will be real Star Trek for True Fans! Paramount will surely hire me and my crew after we blow everyone away with our True Star Trek production!"
I make fanfilms because I like playing in that sandbox. I don't give a flying **** if it's "real Trek" or not. There's no such thing anyway. Star Trek means a million different things to a million different people, so any claim that something is "real Trek" is just silly.
I just want to have fun and tell some (hopefully) interesting stories in that sandbox. That's really all my measly efforts are about.
I just want to have fun and tell some (hopefully) interesting stories in that sandbox. That's really all my measly efforts are about.
Similar threads
