Strange how the only good Trek is fan trek? | Report this post to moderator
By: Sabotman (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:02:10 on Aug 17, 2005

You nay-sayers be silent.
The New Voyages have provided 2 episodes of excellent Trek, far better than 90% of that Voyager s**t!
Seriously, if you don't like it, don't watch.
But let those who do enjoy it, enjoy it.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Strange how the only good Trek is fan trek? | Report this post to moderator
  By: Vash_066 (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:07:48 on Aug 18, 2005

  You are either blind or beyond dumb. Thoese episodes were horrible.
  
  --------
  
  "I'd write my senator/congressman about this....but I can't find my checkbook."
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

well... | Report this post to moderator
By: Vash_066 (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:59:00 on Aug 16, 2005

it probably wont do anyworse at the box office than the last trek film...even though it's not even going to the box office...

--------

"I'd write my senator/congressman about this....but I can't find my checkbook."

Reply

Quote

More pollution | Report this post to moderator
By: Cryoplasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:10:02 on Aug 16, 2005

This is ST pollution this. I honestly can't believe they are allowed to do all this under the ST name. Surely there must be legal implications regarding copying/immitation etc.

Reply

Quote

• RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
  By: AX (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:00:11 on Aug 17, 2005

  Got to disagree with you Cryoplasm. Even though I've had issues with the acting and writing in the past, the show has a hell of a lot of heart. It cares about these characters, and about the universe that Gene created, and I think in a lot of ways that's more than can be said of Enterprise (which I even liked to an extent). Pollution causes harm, it sickens, it wears down. This show strengthens ST with it's heart, and builds it back up with it's imagination. It is not pollution.
  
  As for copyright, I'd just like to personally thank Paramount for not shutting down this production. Others have said the show is safe because it doesn't make money, but I've seen other fan productions shut down in similiar situations. Paramount could shut it down if they wanted, but they don't. For all the crap Paramount gets, this is one of the good things it has done for the fans.
  
  --------
  
  "Time is a face on the water."
  
  -Stephen King, The Dark Tower Series-

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
    By: Toroca (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:31:25 on Aug 17, 2005 | (1)

    Quote:
    As for copyright, I'd just like to personally thank Paramount for not shutting down this production. Others have said the show is safe because it doesn't make money, but I've seen other fan productions shut down in similiar situations. Paramount could shut it down if they wanted, but they don't. For all the crap Paramount gets, this is one of the good things it has done for the fans.
    
    About being safe because it doesn't make any money: This is one of the most common myths regarding copyrights. But it is just that - a myth. On his page where he responds to common myths about copyrights and explains it in terms the average person can understand, Brad Templeton explains that not charging simply means that any damages sought under copyright law would be less. It is technically still a violation, though being free pretty much means the company will look the other way unless the value of the property in question is damaged. It in no way makes such violators "safe" to not charge money.
    
    As for Paramount doing something good for the fans... well, personally, I expect the only reason they've authorized what would otherwise be a blatant copyright violation is because they still recall the backlash when they attempted to crack down on copyright violations on the internet some years back. They once tried to shut down all fan-created Trek sites, apparently ignorant of the fact that the vast majority were in fact increasing the popularity of what used to be their cash-cow franchise by catering to the individual likes and dislikes of a much wider group of fans than the shows themselves were reaching. They went after the community, and the community reacted. Didn't take them very long to back off. While it might be obvious to the average person that all these fan sites amount to one heck of a lot of free advertising, corporate minds don't work that way. All they see is someone else making use of their property.
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

• RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
  By: Gitch (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:33:42 on Aug 16, 2005

  Far from it, the stuff is really good. I'm a huge fan of ST Hidden Frontiers. Those episodes were far truer to Trek than most Ent and late voyager episodes.
  
  RE Copyright, as long as they don't make any money (and these things are run at a loss, the actors and crew do it for free and the producers dig deep into their own pockets) and as long as they don't do anything silly like introduce a skinhead male rapist as Captain of the Enterprise, Paramount let them contimue. It's tremendous free advertising after all.
  
  --------
  
  ****************************************
  "Don't use Nutscrape. It's fucked."
  Smoking Astronaut's unique contribution to the Browser debate.
  
  "If women all have ovaries, why do so few men have underies?"
  Smoke ponders the BIG questions.
  
  "Gitch is having my babies, and Ro is their Godfather."
  A surprising but touching proposition from Smoke.
  
  
  Words of Wisdom from the one and only Smoking Astronaut.
  
  You will be missed Sir.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
    By: m5multitronic (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:19:23 on Aug 16, 2005

    I agree with Gitch.
    
    The stuff is good, and it's brand-new Trek, and the people doing it have shown great love, respect, and dedication to Roddenberry's vision.
    
    More power to 'em, I say.
    
    --------
    
    You will. I won't. That's the difference between a savage and a recovering barbarian.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
      By: Redshirt (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:10:00 on Aug 16, 2005

      I agree with their dedication and commitment to Trek. They have shown that good stories can be produced with people who show respect for the concept.
      The production values are the best that anyone can expect for the budget they have and I'm sure they were asked to provide some props for 'In a Mirror Darkly' - Certainly some form of validation if there was ever any needed.
      
      There is, for me, one problem though. Try as I can, I just can't get past new actors in the roles of Kirk, Spock, et al. I mean no disrespect to them, it's just my narrow-mindedness. This is why I personally believe that a TOS remake would never work any time now - People like me who won't get over it.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
        By: m5multitronic (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:45:29 on Aug 17, 2005

        Curiously enough, I agree with you, Redshirt: I don't believe I could accept any "official", Paramount-backed "re-imagining" of TOS. Primarily because I believe they'd completely fuck it up, and secondarily because I could never see anyone but Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, et.al. playing those roles in any "canon" production.
        
        To me, New Voyages and the other fan-produced TOS-era shows are more like reading the novels. They're non-canon, but they're damn fine entertainment based on a story and characters I've always enjoyed. That's why I can accept them without being overly put off by the new actors. As far as the fan-based "webisodes" are concerned, I agree with the New Voyages "mission statement" that watching their production is just like watching different actors play "Hamlet" or "MacBeth"; they are iconic characters, and this is simply a new interpretation of those roles.
        
        I can live with that.
        
        --------
        
        You will. I won't. That's the difference between a savage and a recovering barbarian.

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: More pollution | Report this post to moderator
          By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:09:36 on Aug 17, 2005

          Everything is in the writing. The fact that they have Koenig gives them a hell of a validation, and this script is penned by DC Fontana, which makes it more valid than anything Berman has done in years.
          
          What's been amazing is the improvement between the first and second episodes. The first one will be remembered for effects and effort. The story wasn't that great.
          
          The second one was much better. The story was better, though there were some holes in the plot, and a serious out of character moment for Spock.
          
          But I enjoyed the story. Maybe one more edit, and they would have had a top notch Trek episode.
          
          And now they have DC Fontana. You know the script is going to be great.

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • 21st Century "Star Trek" | Report this post to moderator
            By: falcon (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:23:12 on Aug 17, 2005 | (1)

            One of the main problems I have with ST:NV is the overall "look" of the show. While I agree that staying true to Roddenberry's overall concept for the show is important, I don't think it needs to look like it was shot in 1969. "In A Mirror, Darkly" showed us what Star Trek can look like when done with 21st century technology and equipment. Granted, they shot ENT with HD cameras (something Cow Creek Films probably can't afford to even rent right now - last price I saw was about $1,100 a day) and CCF shoots ST:NV with a Canon XL-1S DVCam, but there should be some sort of magic inside their Avid editing system that can make the show look a little more...I don't know...modern. If it weren't for the fact that they're half a continent away, I'd gladly offer my production expertise...
            
            --------
            
            A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
            
            PCLinuxOS
            
            falcon

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: 21st Century "Star Trek" | Report this post to moderator
              By: AX (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:53:18 on Aug 17, 2005

              I agree that if there were ever an official remake, or even a show set during that era, that I would expect the latest tech to be made use of. But in this case I don't think it really makes sense to expect that kind of production. I believe someone else already pointed out the fact that these people are working at a loss. They have an extremely limited budget, and resources, to work with. The way I look at it, it makes more sense for them to match the look of the old show, then the new show, because they can actually do it justice. In a lot of ways, despite the date, their resources make them more akin to the production crew of TOS than of ENT, so why try to pretend otherwise?
              
              --------
              
              "Time is a face on the water."
              
              -Stephen King, The Dark Tower Series-

              
              

              Reply

              Quote

            • RE: 21st Century "Star Trek" | Report this post to moderator
              By: m5multitronic (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:02:54 on Aug 17, 2005

              You know, I don't disagree with falcon. "In A Mirror, Darkly" definitely gave me the wood for the concept of TOS shot with modern technology.
              
              But, like the original TOS, Cow Creek is going with what they've got, and doing so on an extremely limited budget.
              
              All in the finest Roddenberry tradition.
              
              --------
              
              You will. I won't. That's the difference between a savage and a recovering barbarian.

              
              

              Reply

              Quote