Topic: Star Trek in Film and TV

http://www.superherohype.com/news/37450 … ies-teaser

If the info in this article is correct, Fuller's show will be an anthology series focused on several crews?  That's an amazing idea, and it could breathe fresh life into this series.  Especially if it feels free to jump around different time periods and species.  A whole season on a Klingon ship.  Or a Romulan-Vulcan ship.  Or a new species looking to join the Federation.  They could do any time from 2063 to 2151 to 2266 to 2364 and beyond. 

Could be really, really cool.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Technically, the new Star Trek movies exist in the original canon, right? Only, an altered version of that canon. So will it be the new timeline or the original timeline? Both are still canon!

It could be interesting, but I doubt that I will see it. Maybe I'll do a free trial once they're all out, but I'm not paying for a CBS service, just for one show. I don't even watch their free stuff over the air. (actually, Supergirl and Limitless were rare exceptions. Supergirl is CW now and Limitless is in limbo)

The hard part will be impressing us with their Star Trek technology. The communicators aren't impressive anymore. No are the PADDs. In fact, why not combine the communicator, the PADD and the tricorder into one device? smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

The initial rumors have the first season set somewhere just after the 6th movie, "The Undiscovered Country"; and that's probably one of the eras I'm least interested in.  For me, it would feel like a step backward instead of a step forward.  Bakula's Enterprise had a similar problem, but at least it's history was new to us.  A revisit to the Undiscovered Country era is just going to be pure retread.

Maybe they're thinking they need to do it first before George Takei dies - all of his adventures as Captain Sulu are in that era.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I hope they don't use George Takei. He is so overplayed these days. He's annoying.

However, I do hope that they talk to Michael Dorn about his idea for a Worf series.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I'd be interested in a Klingon ship after Undiscovered Country.  Or a Federation ship patrolling the Federation/Klingon border, where things might be in a bit of chaos.  Could be some interesting Cold War / post-WWII Berlin / post Iraq War Middle East comparisons to be made.

I do hope we get some post-DS9/VOY stuff and not all prequel stuff.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I think that this would be a great way to update us on old characters. Penny Johnson jokes about still waiting to give birth to Sisko's baby. I doubt that we will ever see Ben again, but maybe we could catch up with Dax, O'Brien, Kira, or other characters like that. They don't have to be central to the series, bit an episode or two here and there could be cool.

7 (edited by omnimercurial 2016-05-19 17:23:33)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

A Worf series WOULD be awesome.....

That said though I am very fond of TNG/DS9 Era Romulans too....

I read a Fan made Partial rewrite of Star Trek: Nemesis.... I guess you could call it an early draft?

Basically a Romulan Movie done right in Fic Form rather than the haphazard mess of a Film we ACTUALLY got.

Let me know if a Link to it would be of interest.

"It's only a matter of time. Were I in your shoes, I would spend my last earthly hours enjoying the world. Of course, if you wish, you can spend them fighting for a lost cause.... But you know that you've lost." -Kane-

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I'd read that (but, again, I'm so behind reading).

I do think a season on an alien ship with minimal human interaction would be really daring and interesting.  It could be a disaster, but I think it's something Fuller might give a shot with the right leeway.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Thoughts....

1. To answer the canon question, this series is "rumored" to follow the original, pre-Orci movie canon.  That means all 10 films and the 5 TV shows, which is music to my ears because I have little affinity for his stories.

2. An anthology series is quite intriguing.  Ironically this is basically what they've been doing with the fan-produced series for years now.  Moreover, this is the new trend.  More and more TV series are doing it, and changing out the casts season after season.  This allows shorter arcs, that can be more focused and fresh.  I like it.

3. CBS All Access I think to me sucks.  Why would I PAY for a service for one show?  Really dumb idea.

4. I'm generally happy to hear about this, because as I said, I'd given up on the franchise.  The movies do nothing for me, and the 2nd one was terrible.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Grizzlor wrote:

3. CBS All Access I think to me sucks.  Why would I PAY for a service for one show?  Really dumb idea.

What's crazy to me is that Star Trek fans have to be pretty close to the top of fans who will ALMOST CERTAINLY pirate the show.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
Grizzlor wrote:

3. CBS All Access I think to me sucks.  Why would I PAY for a service for one show?  Really dumb idea.

What's crazy to me is that Star Trek fans have to be pretty close to the top of fans who will ALMOST CERTAINLY pirate the show.

Include me on that.  I'm already PAYING CBS as part of my cable bill, why would I pay them again?  They're out of their minds.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

So if it is set in the original timeline and in various periods, do you think that they will try to modernize the look and feel of the show? Or will they attempt to recreate the look and feel of what came before? Do we want them to go for the 1991 hair if they're telling a TNG-era story?

Part of me says no and that would just be like fanfic... but part of me says yes. We know that the tech isn't as futuristic as it once seemed and the overall look was really dated, but we like it anyway. It's familiar and comfortable.

On the other hand, we want the Trek universe to be taken seriously. So, how should it be handled?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I think they could do subtle updates to the tech without being too disloyal to the original shows.  A PADD was just a less-fancy tablet.  Make it a little better, and it works.  Less buttons and more touchscreens.  The new movies did a lot of this stuff (Kirk and Scotty have a conversation on a "cell phone" across the galaxy).

I think that's sorta the way I'd do it.  Keep the look and feel of the old tech but update it slightly to make it more relatable.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

But how far do you take that? Right now, we have integrated our "communicators" with our "PADDs". Should they do that on the show? Should they do away with big computer interfaces on their desks?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Well, if we're talking TNG-VOY, the "communicators" also function as transporter locks.  So while it's separating "communication" from our "cell phones" - it actually serves another purpose in the Trek universe.  And it makes sense to have the communicator/transport lock be on your universe/on your body to make sure it works.  It could be subdermal, I guess, but I don't think that technology is necessarily archaic.

The big difference would be however information is displayed, and everything would be smaller and more compact.

If they wanted to go with an explanation, I like the idea that technology stagnated after WWIII.  They're also seemingly behind us in terms of AI technology (The Computer is basically just a better version of Siri, and we'll be better than that in the next decade).  So maybe AI was responsible for WWIII, and we vowed never to go down that road again.  And maybe, due to the fact that everyone had their faces in their cell phones 24/7, we decided to make technology less streamlined.

It sorta works, I guess.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

So maybe AI was responsible for WWIII, and we vowed never to go down that road again

When in doubt, blame SkyNet wink

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

smile

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

For the record, I have never used Siri, but I do like Amazon's Alexa.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Ha, I'd actually be one of the few ones who'd love a direct connection between Trek and Terminator.

It's funny - in Trek, there's almost a complete absence of artificial intelligence, isn't there?  The computer doesn't seem capable of independent thought so she's basically just Siri.  There's Data, of course, but he's a novelty....in the whole galaxy.  The Doctor is sentient, but he seems like advanced technology.  There's the sentient robots that Voyager comes across.  I remember a TNG where a woman invented some sort of robot that gained sentience.

But that's it, right?

It's bizarre.  And what's crazy is that nothing is automated.  When something is dangerous on the ship, someone physically has to go into the room to fix it (see Wrath of Khan).  I mean, right now we have bomb disposal robots and drones to do work too dangerous for people.  In Trek, there's nothing.  And even if humans were afraid of AI for some reason, all of the other species had the same fear of AI.  It probably makes sense for the Klingons, but no one has it.

Maybe it's an evolution thing.  Species that develop AI get wiped out by it.  Species that don't survive.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

That is interesting. What I always found funny was that in emergency situations, everything could be done by voice command. The helm, weapons, environmental systems and all of it could be controlled by voice when they needed to. So most of the crew is just for show.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Info is right, they'd better have mullets!!!!

Seriously though, the biggest issue is telling a story that is fresh, which in Star Trek is very difficult.  The Abrams films should have done that, they branched off in such a dramatic way, and yet movie #2 was a pathetic rehash mess.  They've seemed to go full on Marvel in Beyond. 

Personally I don't care what technology they feature or how they interact within the "prime" universe.  A Trek series needs to have strong stories with a message.  That's what captured me when I was an adolescent watching TNG or DS9.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Informant wrote:

That is interesting. What I always found funny was that in emergency situations, everything could be done by voice command. The helm, weapons, environmental systems and all of it could be controlled by voice when they needed to. So most of the crew is just for show.

Well there's a few episodes where the various ships go down to skeleton crews, and they can still function.  There's the episode where the Doctor is the only one on the ship, right?  And still manages to win a battle, right?

In the episode where Voyager turned out to be duplicates, the crew was just Harry and Seven, right? 

You gotta think a great deal of the crew would have to be maintenance and cleaning, right?  Those ships are always running at top efficiency and look brand new every day.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Yes! Even Voyager, which should have looked like crap after a few weeks.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I'd read that (but, again, I'm so behind reading).

I do think a season on an alien ship with minimal human interaction would be really daring and interesting.  It could be a disaster, but I think it's something Fuller might give a shot with the right leeway.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads … t-20806408

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads … t-21077946

There ya go! smile

"It's only a matter of time. Were I in your shoes, I would spend my last earthly hours enjoying the world. Of course, if you wish, you can spend them fighting for a lost cause.... But you know that you've lost." -Kane-

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Unrelated to the new Trek series, but Anton Yelchin who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies has died at age 27, after getting pinned between his car and security gate.

I'm really sorry to hear about this. I was a fan of his work. If you haven't seen Odd Thomas, check it out.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

He was a great actor, destined for quite a lot, very nice, humble guy too.  Quite a shame.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I am really depressed by this news. I obviously didn't know the guy, but I've only ever heard great things about him and he has done some really impressive work. I'm as shocked as I was with Heath Ledger, but for some reason, a drug overdose is easier to process than this freak accident. Both are sad, don't get me wrong. This just doesn't compute.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

He seemed like a good dude, and he was a rising star at one point (he did a bunch of big projects in a row at a pretty young age).  He sorta slowed down a bit, but he brought a lot to the Chekov role.  RIP.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Anton had a career that I admire. He did the big fun movies, like Star Trek, but he spent most of his time on smaller movies and living a normal life. I look at people like Clooney or Pitt or most of the people on that level, and they're so unrelatable that they don't even bother acting anymore. They just read lines. I can't see any real actor wanting that sort of life where most of their work is in the tabloids.

When I picture an acting career for myself (which I really don't have enough time for these days), it's more along the lines of Anton Yelchin. He was incredibly well respected and liked by those around him. Steadily working. Produced quality work. Yet, he wasn't one of those actors who was so famous that their movies didn't matter anymore. I like the actors who aren't Hollywood elite d-bags.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I like the idea of an anthology series and so many possibilities are wide open.
I would like to see "The Adventures of Excelsior" captained by Capt Sulu (of course have another actor play . He was in his forties at the time of St 6 and is in his sixties now. Could Takei pull it off?  Possibly. Would be interesting. ) 

I'd like to see one story dedicated to the Federation -Romulan War. This would preclude TOS by about 100 years and chronicle the adventures of a starship, the USS Patton that engaged the Romulans.

Be good to see Worf in command of his own vessel, be it a Federation Starship or a Klingon battle cruiser...

And lets see them dedicate a season  to a Romulan storyline
I get all warm and fuzzy thinking of the possibilities.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

It would be interesting to see a story that builds to the destruction of Romulus. That would still happen in the regular Trek universe, after all.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Fuller implying that nothing we know is right:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/37699 … rek-rumors

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

It'd be helpful if they would start giving us some idea of what this is looking like. At the very least, tell us which timeline it takes place in. I know that mystery is usually good for these projects, but that only works when you haven't kinda burned your bridges with a lot of people (not necessarily just blaming the Abramsverse. Enterprise was a mess that retconned a lot of stuff that it shouldn't have)


In other news, Paramount released some fan film guidelines and will not sue fan film makers who follow these rules:
http://www.startrek.com/fan-films


A lot of fans are pissed off, because it severely limits what they can do and puts a lot of productions in jeopardy. However, I totally see why Paramount did it. If someone took one of my books and wrote fanfic based on it to post on the internet, I would probably think that it was cool. If that person turned around and started selling that story and making a profit off of that material, I would have a problem. That's my money that they're taking at that point.

Fans are upset because Paramount doesn't seem to respect their fan films. However, it was those "fans" who violated the trust of the company in the first place. They raised millions of dollars for these productions, created entire studios to make them and earned a salary off of them. The only people who weren't gaining from the use of Paramount's intellectual property was Paramount. Once those fan films started getting out of control, I don't see how Paramount could ignore them. Paramount is making their own movies which are (let's face it) authorized fan films at this point. If the official productions are competing with people who aren't even licensing the material, Paramount has to push back.

If the fan films were small, innocent productions, this wouldn't have blown up. But the makers kept pushing the limits of what they were allowed to do, and that's not cool.


On another note, we should totally create a Sliders fan-made series! I'm sure we could get some of the old actors. At the very least, we should be able to get some of the old Star Trek actors who are out of work now!

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Wow, that's way more restrictive than I thought it'd be.  I was thinking they might exclude actual Star Trek actors and restrict any money they make.  The titling rule makes sense.  But if guys want to pay a crap ton of money to make an authentic-looking Trek, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.  As long as, of course, people aren't making any money off of it.

I'm surprised Paramount didn't just require the movies to be hosted on their own website.  And let Paramount put ads during or before it so they can get some money off every viewing.  Anything not housed on the Paramount-owned site would be taken down, and they'd control it. 

I mean, heck, they could even do more with it.  What if Paramount decided to take an actual role in these films?  These fan studios/productions could pay Paramount to make their productions with the help of Paramount themselves.  If you want to make your own sets and costumes and run the production yourself, then that's fine.  But what if you wanted  to make a fan film but didn't have any experience?  What if Paramount let you pay to use certain sets that they've built?  And costumes?  And even use freelance cameramen, directors, editors, etc to help the whole process through?

I don't know if the demand is there for that, but wouldn't it be cool if you could make something under the banner of Paramount?  Something, while not canon, that is "official" in one way or another?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

The main issue: the Axanar funds were being used to build a for profit studio and pay the producer. This was not a zero profit project; Axel Peters was earning money for himself and paying himself from the crowdsourced funds. He forced Paramount and CBS to defend their copyright. If they let this slide, they wou'd be legally vulnerable to losing their copyrights for not defending them.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Those rules are clearly aimed at things like Star Trek:New Voyages, that have used unproduced TOS and TNG scripts and featured appearances from TOS cast members.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Didn't Paramount allow a sort of unofficial-yet-official fanfic a while back, realeasing them through their book publishers? I vaguely remember that.

Star Trek always had a unique relationship with fans. Their open submission policy for their tv shows was unlike anything I've seen before or since. I loved that, and they got some good writers from it.

Sadly, fans took advantage of this relationship. Because of those groups, Paramount had to pull way back, and in a loud way. These rules may he loosened in the future, I think, but Paramount needed to make it clear who the owner of the property was. It will be a few years at least before they loosen up.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Yeah, I get that.  I don't blame Paramount for coming down hard - and maybe they will ease up in the future.  I just think it'd be really cool for the property if Paramount went the other direction and actively helped fan films.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I think the option of hosting those movies on their site is a good idea... except, they're already working on a streaming project that would interfere with that.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

As someone who works for a not-for-profit, it can be hazy to determine what counts as profiting and not profiting. I'm a staff member; I earn money, I am profiting. The not-for-profit part simply means that my organization is not seeking to earn money to enrich itself; it's seeking to accomplish other goals. But we get to operate in that gray area because we're not using unlicensed copyrighted material and intellectual property that belong to somebody else.

Paramount's restrictions seem partially focused on how nobody involved in a fan film should be making money from it, not from the sale of the film, not from tickets, and not from salaries based on working in it. However, the restricted length and the content limitations that STAR TREK itself doesn't adhere to and the requirement that fan films use Paramount sponsored props seems designed specifically to discourage all fan films. It's unfortunate -- but Paramount is entirely within its rights to say what should and shouldn't be done with its material.

If my neighbour uses my backyard barbeque without asking, I may let him or I may refuse or I may let him do it for a week or two but then declare that it's off limits for the third week. Or I may say that he's limited to using only olive oil and that no charcoal is permitted or that it's only for vegetable kebabs. It's my barbeque. If he wants to make hamburgers, he can buy his own barbeque. If Alec Peters wants to make a space opera film, he can do it without using the STAR TREK copyrights. Paramount is entirely within its rights to say what can and can't be done with its barbeque.

I sometimes wonder if EarthPrime.com and Dimension of Continuity are just one or two ceast and desist letters away from getting shut down due to us posting scripts, reviews, original writing and other uses of material that is owned by NBCUniversal and used without permission. However, we're not making any money from it aside from having portfolio pieces to show our skills to future employers. We lose money on it; SLIDERS REBORN is $180 overbudget because I had to rent a hotel room to finish the first script, Matt pays the hosting fees and for tech support due to hacks. Any financial gain will be for NBCUniversal through a DVD sale now and then.

A ROBOCOP site out there earns money by having referral ads to ROBOCOP merchandise on Amazon that earns the site a small piece of each Amazon purchase resulting from the link -- I would avoid doing even that. When we don't own a property, we have no business taking other people's money for it; even crowdsourcing to presumably pay for resources makes me wary, and people like Alec Peters have made it clear that the crowd may simply be having their funds line the fundraiser's pocket.

Alec Peters' defense of his financial arrangements and his legal position are absurd. He first claims that Paramount is giving him trouble because they want his money as though a studio that earns $300 million in profit annually would want his $1 million on crowdsourced funds. He then says that Paramount is jealous of his material and insecure that his output is better than theirs, a claim based in such petty and empty subjectivity that it should be dismissed entirely. He then says that yes, despite AXANAR being not for profit, he pays himself out of the crowdsourced funds, but he should because he works 60 hour weeks and it's less than what Paramount executives get paid. Whether it's more or less is irrelevant; he is earning money with somebody else's property which he has not licensed, which he has no right to use. And if Paramount didn't mind, that's fine, but if they do mind, they are entirely within their rights to do so. It's their house. They get to say you're not to use their barbeque.

JJ Abrams and Justin Lin protested the lawsuit; I think they were unaware that AXANAR was using crowdsourcing to build Alec Peters' studio space for other projects and to pay him five figures.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Not really on topic, but I've considered reworking some of my fanfic into entirely original stories and selling them. I have a bunch that would work. I could probably churn out a bunch of novellas just using those ideas.

Hmm... interesting.

41 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2016-06-25 23:02:19)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Informant wrote:

On another note, we should totally create a Sliders fan-made series! I'm sure we could get some of the old actors. At the very least, we should be able to get some of the old Star Trek actors who are out of work now!


Informant wrote:

Not really on topic, but I've considered reworking some of my fanfic into entirely original stories and selling them. I have a bunch that would work. I could probably churn out a bunch of novellas just using those ideas.

Hmm... interesting.


One of the things I would super-appreciate if people did is write to Amazon's Kindle Worlds program (http://kindleworlds.amazon.com) and ask them to add SLIDERS as a world. This will allow authors to write Sliders work (minimum 5k words up to full length books) and be able to sell it on the kindle platform, and get compensated for it.

It takes two seconds to write Kindle Worlds, you can do so here: https://kindleworlds.amazon.com/contactus 

They already responded when I wrote them, saying:

"In order to submit or create a World we need you to please send us a request, just like you have done. Your request has been recorded.

We continue to expand the program, and will keep your offer in mind when we open negotiations for new Worlds.

If we believe there's an opportunity to work with them, we'll be definitely announce and let you know about it via email.

I think if they get 5 or 10 requests, it's certainly better than just one so I hope folks here will send a brief note. It would seem to help to improve the chances.  I know Aaron, who many of you have heard on Sliderscast, would want to try to do a Sliders series (he's already done six non sliders books), and I am sure there's some other authors out there who've already done work that can be repurposed for the program.

We have a lot of good authors in the community, and it is a way of carrying the torch with regard to the franchise continuing to put out stories, and at least there's a little financial incentive, even if it by and large remains passion project writing.  Getting Sliders on Kindle Worlds is a achievable goal.

As far as your mentioning a fan-made Sliders series, I think it would be certainly cool to do teleplays... there are a couple of great JRD impersonators out there, there's a guy who imitated Jerry's voice for VO work on the Kangaroo Jack animated series, doing Remmy wouldn't be too hard, and same with Wade. I think a decent quality audio production could be put together for $2-5k. I think Sliders 2015 is perfect for it. And I think it would be plausible to raise the money on kickstarter.

That said, I'm not even thinking about the teleplay nowadays.  Since Jerry wants to bring back to tv series so much (especially if he doesn't get the Kelly talk show gig), I'd like to see how that plays out. I had an interesting exchange on twitter with the co-executive producer on NBC's blacklist, a friend & past collaborator with Tracy, and while I think it'd be awful hard to get a network without the right things in place, I'm not giving up on the idea that a tv series or tv movie is impossible.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Well they killed all fan series now.  15 minutes or less. No continuing series? No professional actors? No former Trek actors?  What's the point now?  Dead. 

Info you mentioned fan created stories, but they've never clamped down on the books, it's whatever Simon and Schuster wants to publish.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

My thoughts on Grizzlor's thoughts:

(a) With the exception of STAR TREK CONTINUES, all those fanfilms and fan serieses SUCKED. Terrible cinematography, embarrassingly poor acting (even from the professional actors) and ghastly writing. We had this lengthy debate on the old Bboard where you said the original series was cheesy too and I said the original TREK was melodramatic and funny and conversational and skillful whereas these fan films were just inept. So, no great loss on the most part.

(b) When you play in somebody else's sandbox without permission, that sand may be confiscated and the box dismantled at any time. Anyone who doesn't take the time to inform themselves of that potentiality shouldn't get into the sandbox. Nobody told them to invest the time and money into a project that used copyrighted material they didn't license and do not own.

(c) If they really want to tell their stories and make their shows and films in the way that they have, they could still do it. If NBCUniversal sent me a cease and desist notice on SLIDERS REBORN, I'd be back online within the hour. SLIDERS REBORN would become JUMPERS REBORN. Quinn would Quentin Michaels, Wade would be Willa Wallace, Rembrandt/Remmy would become Raphael/Raphi Baldwin and Professor Arturo would become Professor Allan and I'd just carry on as a parody.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

My thoughts on RussianCabbie's thoughts:

I can't think of anything more terrible than SLIDERS as a fan series with the clumsy non-actors and non-directors of these STAR TREK fan films to be performing scripts that were written as pastiches of Jerry, Sabrina, Cleavant and John's performances. I can't think of anything more unwatchable than poor thespians attempting to imitate these talents.

It is beyond me why you are so keen on people doing poor impressions of these actors -- a desperation for more product even if that product is utter crap. Tom and Cory's impressions of the SLIDERS are, if reviewed as serious drama, an abomination of performance -- they can't maintain the caricatures, they drop the accents, they can't seem to do a character voice and act at the same time -- which is perfect when they do their parodies and horrific when doing it seriously -- and yet you still wanted them to perform a more serious SLIDERS script in character! You said it would be "divine" which tells me you have nearly zero concern for quality (outside of hating SLIDERS REBORN based on a half-assed effort to read 50 pages of it).

But if it makes you happy, go ahead. All those STAR TREK fan films are mostly awful awful awful -- but they made their creators happy by existing.

45 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2016-06-26 08:59:14)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

ireactions wrote:

My thoughts on RussianCabbie's thoughts:

I can't think of anything more terrible than SLIDERS as a fan series with the clumsy non-actors and non-directors of these STAR TREK fan films to be performing scripts that were written as pastiches of Jerry, Sabrina, Cleavant and John's performances. I can't think of anything more unwatchable than poor thespians attempting to imitate these talents.

It is beyond me why you are so keen on people doing poor impressions of these actors -- a desperation for more product even if that product is utter crap. Tom and Cory's impressions of the SLIDERS are, if reviewed as serious drama, an abomination of performance -- they can't maintain the caricatures, they drop the accents, they can't seem to do a character voice and act at the same time -- which is perfect when they do their parodies and horrific when doing it seriously -- and yet you still wanted them to perform a more serious SLIDERS script in character! You said it would be "divine" which tells me you have nearly zero concern for quality (outside of hating SLIDERS REBORN based on a half-assed effort to read 50 pages of it).

But if it makes you happy, go ahead. All those STAR TREK fan films are mostly awful awful awful -- but they made their creators happy by existing.

The idea of getting impersonators is because I don't think you can get the real actors. I once did think that might be possible... as a final send off of the series for sliders fans... but with jerry now interested in doing a tv series, I would think he wouldn't want to do what would be canon via a uncommercialzed one time radio drama.

I don't think corey/tom were doing those things seriously.. they were meant to be funny.  You'd have to find people who could do a decent job of sounding like these characters.  Although not easy, I think its possible. And I don't think you do it if you can't find those folks. I realize this more now than I once did.

I do agree bad actors would make the entire thing satirical in a bad way.  Trying to do such a project is not something I'd even suggest pursuing at this time, I just brought it up as a form of a fan revival that I think is more reasonable to achieve then doing anything live action, like i think informant was suggesting.... because it is just so much bigger of an effort once cameras are involved.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

There is a problem with the way people go about making fan films. It's fine if they want to have fun and be silly, but if they're trying to make serious-looking productions, they need to be more careful.

First, they need to put aside their geeky fantasies. You are not going to get any actor to come in and be Shatner's Kirk or Nimoy's Spock. They need to get away from impersonators entirely. This means either a complete reboot (which also means reimagining the look and feel of the project) or go with entirely new characters.

Second, they need to stop casting themselves in these projects. This is where fan films and serious films can't work together. It's hard enough to do this properly with original work and experienced crews. Doing it on a fan film level makes it impossible to make the film properly. They're putting themselves above the material, and that's going to kick them in the ass.

Third, they need to stop trying to recreate what has already happened. Stop using actors who are supposed to be other actors. Stop using actors who have been on the shows before, playing the same characters. Stop using the sets that look exactly like the other sets. Stop giving us reasons to look at the project and only see what they're not.


There is no reason why a fan film can't look great and feel great. There are perfectly good actors in most places around the country. Cameras today make it very possible to make professional-looking films for cheaper. But the project needs focus. Is the goal to have silly fun, LARPing these characters? Or is it to make a movie that looks like it could be the real deal?

Sliders... I was kinda joking about making a fan film, but it's not impossible. However, the rules still apply.

Step one: Give up on trying to look and feel like the original. Even if we could, the original is dated by today's standards. The methods used to make such a crazy idea look and feel realistic are completely different today. Mostly because we can have steadycam shots with CG work done a lot more easily today than we could have twenty years ago. The project would have to be looked at like a new film/series, creating the look and feel from the ground up.

Step two: Recognize and embrace the limitations. If you don't have Jerry, don't have Quinn. This would probably lead to a complete reboot of the series, or a sequel series that exists in the same tv universe, but follows different characters. Either way, don't pretend that your next door neighbor is Quinn just because he has a flannel shirt.
Also, if you don't have the ability to shoot big action sequences or crazy looking worlds, don't write them. Having the Sliders land in a world that's one big forest would look better than having them land in a crazy alien city that looks like a five year old made it with construction paper and a glue stick. Know your limitations ahead of time and write toward them.

Going back to my Buffy season 8 (because it's my big fanfic experience, not because I think it's the best thing ever), I built limitations into the story because I didn't want to write everything that I personally wanted to see happen, like most of the fanfic was doing at the time. I wanted to make it seem like a real TV show, so I thought about what a season 8 would look like. Huge budget cut, meaning a relocation for filming. A cast that was tired and wouldn't want to do 22 episodes. Characters who were dead and needed to stay that way. Others who wouldn't be on board with moving to Canada to film. Once you decide where the walls of your creation are, you can start decorating inside those walls.

Odds are, a Sliders fan film would be done with a few unfamiliar actors, playing unfamiliar characters, with few outdoor shots and a lot of interiors of homes, etc.

With those limitations in mind, I think a good product could be made. But I think the fan side of it would be let down by not being a new episode of the series, with all of the familiar characters.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

The STAR TREK RENEGADES fan series, in response to the TREK fanfilm guidelines, has decided to carry on with their project anyway. They're just removing all the STAR TREK elements from their content. If their material is worth doing to begin with, this isn't going to be a problem.

Looking at my own stuff -- if you took LONELYGIRL15 out of LONELYJOURNAL15 and SLIDERS out of SLIDERS REBORN, they would collapse instantly. But that's why I would never want anyone to put anything but thought and typing into either of these projects; that's why they exist as PDF documents.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I don't know how they're going to do that. They have Star Trek actors wearing Star Trek makeup and costumes, playing the same characters that they played on the series. I guess we'll see how that works out for them.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I don't see what the problem is. Did GALAXY QUEST suffer because they hired Tim Allen and Alan Rickman instead of Shatner and Nimoy? Doing RENEGADES as an analogue to STAR TREK rather than a fan film is a valid and effective approach. They'll need to change the costumes and makeup. As a comic book fan, this is nothing new to me: Wildstorm comics wanted DCesque characters, so they created Apollo, Midnighter, Zealot as their versions of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. When DOCTOR WHO was cancelled, there were some fan productions where the actors who played the Doctor now played The Stranger.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Renegades and Tim Russ' movie Of Gods and Men were both top notch, and like Continues had some good acting and writing.  I wouldn't admonish ALL fan creations are garbage though.  So does New Voyages/Phase II, which has brought back so many fantastic Trek veteran actors and crew members.  I personally LOVED the return of Walter Koenig and George Takei, who are good actors that rarely got to "act" on TOS. 

As for casting, Info you should give Edward Burns' book Independent Ed a read!  He's the master of indies, and you really get a sense of how difficult putting this stuff together is.  They cast themselves because casting pro actors has too many issues.  Namely, if they get a job, they're out.  If they are SAG-AFTRA, they probably won't do the project for very long.  I would agree though focusing on TOS cast has gotten out of hand, but nowadays only Continues/Phase II are really still doing this. 

Paramount (aka JJ Abrams and co.) don't really care about all of this.  They've rebooted and moved FAR away from the Trek I grew up with.  This is about CBS, and don't forget that until a few years ago CBS had ZERO ownership of Star Trek.  It was always Paramount/Viacom for decades and decades, and they were fine with most anything the fans did.  CBS though is not.  They took ownership IMO in a shitty way, being given the "TV side" for really no good reason, in the Viacom/CBS de-merger.  CBS is starting this new service and a the new Fuller series.  Clearly they are somehow feeling the fan stuff endangers their new property, which frankly is hilarious but whatever.  Network television is garbage, run by legacy idiots who get jobs because of who their daddies are.