ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek

ebbandit

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1039

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 5:26 pm

I think so, the fan based stuff I have seen at least follows cannon, and is the same era as tos, with the same look and feel.

Trekwolf164

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 32043

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 5:28 pm

There has always been official Trek and fan based Trek the real change has been OFGAM getting the green light to be shown publicly. I think there will always be room for both.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 7:52 pm

With all due respect, Bax (seriously)...I think that the idea that "Of Gods and Men" is a superior story / production to the last Trek movie is strictly your opinion.

I watched it and found it to be fairly convoluted and contrived. I thought it was almost entirely a waste of time, kind of like a Voyager "this never happened" episode. It wasn't crap, and I enjoyed certain elements of it, but I was very let-down. I think if multiple original cast members were not in it, I'd probably consider it rather weak.

I think that JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof are considered one of the best creative teams in the business right now. I think most of Trek XI's problems were due to two facts:

1. These guys had never written a Trek film before, and NOTHING can compare to the experience of actually doing it and learning lessons from the experience

2. The focus on the "origin story" overshadowed the focus on other elements of the story

If Star Trek XII is a bogus mess, THEN I'll have concerns, but I'm not going to be concerned based on a Freshman outing in a franchise that is more scrutinized under a microscope than any other in entertainment history.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 7:54 pm

Wait...I don't know which question you want us to answer!

Is it

1. "Are you concerned about the future quality of Trek films?"

or is it

2. "Are independant / fan-made productions the way to go?"

:cool:

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 8:32 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 8:20 pm)

Quote:


Quote
I watched it and found it to be fairly convoluted and contrived. I thought it was almost entirely a waste of time, kind of like a Voyager "this never happened" episode. It wasn't crap, and I enjoyed certain elements of it, but I was very let-down. I think if multiple original cast members were not in it, I'd probably consider it rather weak.


Contrived maybe, waste of time no. There is no doubt it was contrived but that was very obvious from the begining and thats what makes it good.

It cant really be a waste of time since the time period in which the movie started hasn't been explored.

A what if not really, it's more of a mirror universe tale.

Consider it what you may, yet most of the fan base would agree with me on this.

Quote

I think most of Trek XI's problems were due to two facts:


1. These guys had never written a Trek film before, and NOTHING can compare to the experience of actually doing it and learning lessons from the experience


I'm not sure if writing a TREK film is really an issue. What is an issue is slopy production mistakes like the size of the Enterprise. A $150 million production shouldn't have those mistakes PERIOD.

Quote

If Star Trek XII is a bogus mess, THEN I'll have concerns, but I'm not going to be concerned based on a Freshman outing in a franchise that is more scrutinized under a microscope than any other in entertainment history.


I actually am not trying to say TREK XI is a bad movie, wasn't even on my mind actually.

What is on my is why cant a major studio production match the quality of a fan production to be quite frank.

BTW it's nothing personal towards anyone, yet people need to accept the fact that maybe the fans ideas are better than the studio's.

OG&M was produced for the 40th anniversary of TREK.

I like most of the "New Voyages" stuff. I think they capured the feel and spirit of the original VERY well.

I just didn't dig on OGAM as much as I thought I would. It wasn't a "Mirror Universe" story per se. "Mirror Universe" stories typically involve crossovers by main characters from the primary universe, and are therefore not an isolated "what if" scenario. I felt that OGAM lacked that element.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 8:39 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 5:22 pm)
I am wondering if we the fans should be concerned about the future of TREK movies when fan films like Star Trek: Of Gods and Men ¿AND ¿Star Trek Phase II's Blood and Fire have higher overall production values and less mistakes than TREK XI?

I am NOT bashing TREK XI, just wondering if this should be a concern.

Could fan productions if given proper resources, be a better way for TREK to go?

:D

VAB, what do you mean that OGAM and STPII have "higher overall production values??!?!?"  How can you compare these fan-made movies with the production of the multi-million dollar ST XI?  

As for the "mistakes," in ST XI, I'm not sure I'd call them that, since I believe Orci, at the very least, was aware of every single change from established ST canon, both in terms of character backrounds, chronology, and the production design.  Rather, I'd call them exercising artistic license.  I believe that's the way that STPII's producer and actor James Cawley also characterized the differences between the production design of ST XI and the original series.  

So, in that sense, I have absolutely no conern over these issues for the next ST film.  It can only far exceed the fan-made films in these areas.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 8:51 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 8:20 pm)
I'm not sure if writing a TREK film is really an issue. What is an issue is slopy production mistakes like the size of the Enterprise. A $150 million production shouldn't have those mistakes PERIOD.

Ok, you're right about that.  That was indeed a mistake, but, honestly VAB, did you even notice it when you first saw the film.  And, even if so, did it ruin the whole film for you?  I didn't really notice it at first and I really doubt most of the general public who saw the film cared either.

Quote

What is on my is why cant a major studio production match the quality of a fan production to be quite frank.


It looked to me like ST XI far surpassed OGAM in terms of production, acting, and story.

Quote

 BTW it's nothing personal towards anyone, yet people need to accept the fact that maybe the fans ideas are better than the studio's.


Or, the converse, that professional writers have better ideas than fans do and know what will work for the general public.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 17 2010, 8:51 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 8:47 pm)

Quote:


Quote
or is it

2. "Are independant / fan-made productions the way to go?"


As far as this part is concerned I am wondering IF ¿the studio should very seriously consider Cawley or someone else with his dedication to TREK to produce the movies. His productions are amazingly popular, contrary to what some think.

I think the sensibilities of Cawley's approach would appeal to guys like you and I, but probably be lost on the general movie-going audience that they are going for.

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Feb. 18 2010, 11:53 am

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 2:42 am)
OGAM is essentially a TREK tribute film. It was meant to be a fun adventure to celebrate TREK turning forty.

And personally, I think this would be the problem. Most fan films are made as 'homages' or 'tributes' to what has come before. I don't know if they would ever stand up as a separate film in their own right (like STXI does).

Fan films also seem to place higher importance on technical details, referencing canon or giving nods to the fans than they do on character development or acting quality.

Don't get me wrong, the few fan films I've seen I've enjoyed immensely, but for the mainstream I really don't think they're the way to go.

And as you know Bax, I say that as someone who is making a fan film themselves, so I mean no offense to the creators of these films at all.

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Feb. 18 2010, 11:54 am

Quote (starbase63 @ Feb. 17 2010, 5:19 pm)
Can we talk about the TOS episode where Kirk walks into a turbolift wearing his green wraparound tunic, has his gold tunic on in the turbolift, then walks onto the bridge in the wraparound?

Lol! Which episode is this?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 18 2010, 12:15 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 9:01 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 17 2010, 5:51 pm)
Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 8:47 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 17 2010, 4:54 pm)

Quote
or is it

2. "Are independant / fan-made productions the way to go?"


As far as this part is concerned I am wondering IF ?the studio should very seriously consider Cawley or someone else with his dedication to TREK to produce the movies. His productions are amazingly popular, contrary to what some think.

I think the sensibilities of Cawley's approach would appeal to guys like you and I, but probably be lost on the general movie-going audience that they are going for.

Maybe I am letting personal preference get in the way. I over the months have become less than satisfied by TREKXI

I understand what you mean by that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "I have become LESS THAN SATISFIED" so much as I would say "I have become LESS SATISFIED," which is a natural effect of the euphoria wearing off (which, by the way, is still a significant factor...after all, the initial unbiased reaction to the first viewing is very important) and being able to view things more objectively.

However, that process does not affect my feelings toward a film like TWOK, which I also hold as one of my personal favorites despite it's many flaws, inconsistencies, etc. So, I try to keep everything in perspective.

Given nearly 10 months worth of time to reflect on Trek XI (and certainly multiple viewings), I'd say I'm much more realistic about what went RIGHT and what went WRONG with the new movie. I can admit and accept that this is really not what I personally would have done...but that's okay becuase it still came out good.

With new perspective and objectivity, here are the things I personally still love:

1. The respect paid to the characters
2. The performances of the actors
3. The emphasis on the core "human elements" over an emphasis on heavy-handed preaching or technobabble
4. The dramatic elements were genuine and well-related
5. A good deal of the humor was effective and appropriate
6. The action sequences were spectacular
7. The special effects were top-notch
8. The music ranks up with the best of the Trek films and series
9. The creativity of the "alternate reality" approach
10. The journeys of Kirk and Spock's characters

Some things that are "less satisfying" to me now are:
1. The production design is pretty blah. I'm not a JJPrise "hater," but I'm not in love with the interior OR exterior designs for the Enterprise. In fact, I rather dislike them.
2. The technical / science fiction elements are pretty questionable
3. The pace of the story is almost TOO hectic. It seems like they could have greatly benefited from some different editing decisions and perhaps a slightly longer run time
4. The villian, while sufficiently menacing, was not very well fleshed-out
5. Some of the humor was a little too slapstick or corny for a Trek film, in my opinion
6. I don't think I can take any more "Enterprise saves Earth" plots. This movie was the last straw on that one.

So there you have it.

I think my bias toward continuing to hold the film in high regard is that my absolute favorite thing about Trek has always been the character stuff, and this movie really scratched that itch (it also goes to show why I actually like TFF, which otherwise is considered a pile of steaming dog dung...but the character stuff in that film was great!;)...

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Feb. 18 2010, 5:32 pm

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (starbase63 @ Feb. 18 2010, 6:47 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 17 2010, 8:20 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 17 2010, 4:52 pm)> id="QUOTE">
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 18 2010, 10:00 am)

:question:

Just basically means it was made on a non-existent budget by volunteers.

So what "errors" in ST:XI are you referring to, outside of the stardate given by Captain Robau not being in keeping with something occurring prior to "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?

:logical:

Basic production errors not related to the story, thing like Captain Robau's magically disappearing insignia on his uniform and other simple basic things that never should be allowed to happen.

You would have to watch OGAM to see why it is a better production. It would most definately be something you would greatly enjoy. There is no bad acting or cheesy sets. The only limitation they had was CGI and thats because of the small budget and the large scope of what they were doing.

IF you haven't seen it I can send a copy of the DVD your way.
Those things have happened in every single film in history and will continue to happen, including all Trek films, no matter how large or small the budget.

GalaxyClass14

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 396

Report this Feb. 19 2010, 4:04 pm

Quote (WkdYngMan @ Feb. 17 2010, 6:32 pm)
Those things have happened in every single film in history and will continue to happen, including all Trek films, no matter how large or small the budget.

word

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Feb. 20 2010, 1:25 am

Quote (MrsStarbuck @ Feb. 18 2010, 11:54 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Feb. 17 2010, 5:19 pm)
Can we talk about the TOS episode where Kirk walks into a turbolift wearing his green wraparound tunic, has his gold tunic on in the turbolift, then walks onto the bridge in the wraparound?

Lol! Which episode is this?

"Charlie X" if I'm right.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Feb. 20 2010, 1:44 am

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 19 2010, 11:53 pm)
Some of those things have happened in every film. Yet to have all of those happen in a 150 million dollar film it is unacceptable.

Companies don't shell out that type of money to produce a product full of mistakes that in this case could have been avoided if people paid attention to what they were doing.

I work for a multi billion dollar company and they expect no errors of any type for products that they invest in regardless of cost involved.

Rationalize it any way you think make sense yet it's bad business.

How many truly occurred? And how many were even noticeable or worked against the film? Remember, it was months before someone even pointed out Robau's missing insignia. ?Can't be that many. Only other "problem" I can think of was Kirk's head position was a little different a couple of times in two different shots on the shuttlecraft with McCoy.  I only caught that out of a goof!

Quote
Rationalize it any way you think make sense yet it's bad business.


They made a healthy return on their investment and gained lots of happy new customers. ¿Great business.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum