Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Fan-Made Star Trek Episode Available for Download 636

Posted by chrisd from the better-than-nemesis dept.
Minnesota trekker writes "Two Minnesota fans of the original "Star Trek" series spent seven years, off and on, creating an all-new episode in the 1960s style using their own actors, sets and props. Behold, the U.S.S. Exeter (www.starshipexeter.com). The episode's look and feel is amazingly authentic. The story is inventive and the acting surprisingly good. The damn thing, dubbed "The Savage Empire," is actually watchable. The site gives lots of details on how the episode was created, and even more background is available on the Pioneer Press site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fan-Made Star Trek Episode Available for Download More

Fan-Made Star Trek Episode Available for Download

Comments Filter:

  • Damnit Jim... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Life2Short ( 593815 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:50PM (#5000581)
    I'm an ACTOR, not a STAGEHAND...

  • Copyright infringement (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    can't wait for the lawsuits to start :P

    • Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:55PM (#5001221) Homepage
      Paramount is touchy about this stuff. I don't see any evidence the producers got permission -- in fact they claim copyright on the credits page. Permission is easier to get before than after. There are some trademark issues here, too, I think.

      One hopes of course that Paramount has a sense of humor and goes along. Technically all that fanfic stuff violates copyright and trademark, too. Paramount should formally give permission to prove it is policing its stuff. Maybe Exeter did get permission and hid it somewhere....

      It does look like they did a nice job (which is exactly what possibly gets them in trouble) but what bothers me is the sort of stranglehold on scifi creativity Star Treak has had by virtue of its success. Everyobody seemed to have transporters, "energy weapons", and annoying characters with apostrophes in their names (like ah'Choo or Phtt'tt). It took real creativity to break out of this mold, as in shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape, not that these are perfect (Trek sure wasn't).

      Maybe these folks should have gone where no nerd had gone before?

      • Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RazzleFrog ( 537054 )
        They have every right to claim copyright on the movie. The movie and the script are original works and are therefore are immediately copyrighted when put into a concrete form.

        As for Paramount, they probably could make a big stink and intimidate the producers of the movie into some sort of settlement (since they of course have deeper pockets) but in truth this probably falls into the realm of fair use, much like the Star Trek parodies on SNL, etc.

        It is especially important to note that the name of the movie does not include Star Trek anywhere. It also does not use any names from the original shows and movies. In general there is not enough to really call this infringement.

        • Re:Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by RoundTop-VJAS ( 580788 )
          Ok... time for me to dredge up my business law class here...

          Here is the problem. A parody or criticism falls under fair use (such as a news article or an SNL sketch), as long as a) they can tell it is such, and b) it is one of those 2 things.

          If however the work is a derivative of the work (in this case Star Trek) then the viewer should expect that it is a proper work, as such it breaks copyright.

          These guys unfortunately don't have a leg to stand on, paramount could slap them with a cease and decist order quickly and take them to court for this easily... and win.

          Fair use is not "as long as it works or is good". Only critisism or parody (see Wierd Al's case with I forget what rapper). See UAW v. Michelin.

          It is also true that the script and movie are copyright to these guys, they are infringing on trademarks of Paramount.

      • Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Reziac ( 43301 )
        This is really just an extreme case of fanfiction, not much different from Star Wars shorts you can download from theforce.net (if you haven't seen "Troops" -- start there!!) Do you have any idea how VAST fanfic is? Here's a hint: in 1984, just the *index* of =known= Star Wars fanfic (probably about comparable to Star Trek fanfic in volume) was around 200 pages in 6 point type. The actual "one of each" SW fanfic collexion (sponsored by LucasArts) *fills* a double garage over in Santa Barbara.

        (BTW, do you know what subgenre of fanfic Shatner and Nimoy both collect? :)

        In general, studios leave fanfic alone, so long as it's nonprofit, and doesn't violate some arbitrary rule (like George's "there is no sex in the SW universe" -- which is why SW slashfic, tho very popular, is underground to this day). Selling fanzines to cover printing costs and postage is acceptable. As to copyright issues, that's long since been beaten to death (including by fanfic-writing lawyers, with varying degrees of cluelessness) but when it's come down to push and shove, essentially the studio can assert copyright on the fanfic as a derivative work. LucasArts has been involved in some court cases about that, but they soon learned that 1) they couldn't stop it anyway, and 2) nothing serves so well to keep fan fever alive, thus money coming into their coffers.

        As to how the studios do protect their material, they generally confine themselves to prohibiting distribution of actual images from film or TV, and being very hardassed about attempts to market novels to Real Publishers. Essentially, you need to already be on the studio's contract to do that. (Fanfic novels are ignored so long as no one ever attempts to sell them to a publisher.)

  • Did they go... (Score:5, Funny)

    by craenor ( 623901 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:51PM (#5000604) Homepage
    To the William Shatner school of overacting?

    Cannot...seem...to...communicate...with...the aliens...must get...somekindof...resolution before Enterprise...is...destroyed!
    • No respect for Starfleet captains.

      Just as the captain is heading to the bridge, someone jumps into the turbolift and shuts the door. (in the teaser) :P

  • sounds like trouble (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:52PM (#5000617) Homepage Journal
    This is pretty cool. I remember a similar community effort being discussed several years ago to bring the Timothy Zahn Star Wars sequels to the screen (or to tape, whatever). Never got off the ground, AFAIK.

    I am a little worried as to how this will be treated by Paramount. They are notoriously evil when it comes to "protecting" their copyrights, especially when it comes to Trek.

    Also, why the Exeter? Is there any reason given as to why the Federation would name a ship after an East Coast prep school with a history of buggery?

    • Re:sounds like trouble (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:05PM (#5000761)
      Most likely, it was named after this Exeter [dircon.co.uk]. Here's [rnzncomms.net.nz] an account of how the Japanese sunk her in WWII.

      Chris Mattern

    • Re:sounds like trouble (Score:2, Interesting)

      by edwardd ( 127355 )
      The Exeter is also the name of a Brittish warship.
    • I don't know if this was the inspiration, but Exeter is the lead uhh... villan who has a change of heart the end of the bad 50's sci-fi movie This Island Earth [imdb.com] - which I only know because Mystery Science Theater 3000 [scifi.com] focused their wit on this movie, when they made their Mystery Science Theater 3000, The Movie [imdb.com].

      Alas, after a run on the comedy channel and then on the sci-fi channel, production of new shows has been cancelled. They still show reruns Saturday mornings, in fact make sure and check out "Space Mutiny" playing on Jan. 11th. It the funniest one of this last season.

      Mst3k - Thank you for all the laughs and bad movies. May you rest in peace.

    • Trek history... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:14PM (#5000846) Homepage Journal
      Long time Trek fans will recall that the Exeter was one of the original 12 Constitution-class starships. Others included Constitution (obviously), Enterprise (duh!), York, Potempkin, Hood... that's all I recall off-hand.

      The old AMC U.S.S. Enterprise I built with my Dad when I was a bout 8 or so had decals for all twelve ships with appropriate call numbers (NCC-1700, etc).

      I'm sure the classic, original Technical Reference Guide, with its silly "20th century equivalent" electronic components probably has a listing, but mine's in a box somehwhere.

      p.s. I live in a subdivision called "Exeter".

      • Re:Trek history... (Score:5, Informative)

        by pomakis ( 323200 ) <pomakis@pobox.com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @04:03PM (#5001297) Homepage
        According to this site [csn.ul.ie], this is the complete list of Constitution-class starships during the original Star Trek Series:

        • USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
        • USS Constitution (NCC-1700)
        • USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
        • USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
        • USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
        • USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
        • USS Farragut (NCC-1647)
        • USS Hood (NCC-1703)
        • USS Intrepid (NCC-1831)
        • USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
        • USS Potemkin (NCC-1657)
        • USS Republic (NCC-1371)
        • USS Yorktown (NCC-1717)

        The site also gives episode references for each of these ships. This is what it says about the Exeter:

        NCC-1672 Encyc., TOS "Court Martial"
        (identified by wall status display)
        Captain Ronald Tracey TOS "The Omega Glory"
        Abandoned in orbit around Omega I
        It's interesting that in this list the USS Exeter is given the NCC number 1672, but the guys who wrote "Starship Exeter" gave it the number 1706. This was either an oversight on their part, or it's supposed to be a different Exeter.

        • Re:Trek history... (Score:5, Informative)

          by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @06:25PM (#5002498) Homepage Journal
          Depends on your source, I think. IIRC, the old Tech Ref Manual listed them as 1700-1711. I don't suppose the contract numbers are canon, even if (at least some of) the names are.

          The TRM goes on to list later generations including dozens more Constitution-class ships as well as several other versions from scouts and tugs to my fave, the "Dreadnought", with 3 warp nacelles.

          Those starship types don't show up in the later "Star Trek History of Space Flight" (or whatever it was called) book. I don't know how rigidly Paramount managed that sort of thing, so finding contradictory info might be easy.

          I don't want to get into the whole "what is canon and what isn't" thing, it's just a freakin' TV show. However, I do think the idea of making new episodes in the vein of TOS is really cool, especially if there's good continuity with established history (like "Federation", which was the best Star Trek book I ever read).

          I'm DL'ing the episode by modem, so I'll get to enjoy it tomorrow.

    • "Also, why the Exeter? Is there any reason given as to why the Federation would name a ship after an East Coast prep school with a history of buggery?"

      On a hunch, I entered "HMS Exeter" into Google. It was a York-class heavy cruiser that saw action against the Graf Spee early in the war and was sunk in the Battle of Java Sea in 1942. It looks like it was one of the "not-a-battleship" classes that the RN was notorious for building in the 1920's and 1930's.

      IMO, a CC is closer to "NCC" than a CV-ish name like "Enterprise." What the heck does the N stand for, anyway?

      • NCC: What does it stand for? Absolutely nothing.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Mad Man ( 166674 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @04:01PM (#5001279)


        Although commonly believed to stand for "Naval Construction Contract [google.com]", NCC doesn't stand for anything at all, according to the StarTrek.com FAQ at http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=136 5 [startrek.com]
        (there should not be a space in "1365")


        What does the starship registry prefix "NCC" mean?
        The Starfleet starship registry prefix "NCC" doesn't officially mean anything other than it is the standard prefix for starships in service. There have been other prefixes, notably "NX," denoting a prototype, or experimental vessel. The two most famous ships with this prefix would be the U.S.S. Excelsior NX-2000 and the U.S.S. Defiant NX-74205. Once the U.S.S. Excelsior was rendered operational, the prefix changed to the standard NCC.

        When Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was asked this question, he replied that there was no significance to the letters and numbers comprising the registry of the U.S.S. Enterprise. At the time Star Trek first aired, airplanes commonly had "NC" on them, and adding the extra "C" updated the look. Original series art director (and avid pilot) Matt Jefferies has commented that he chose the "1701" combination of numbers because it was legible from a distance and the numbers wouldn't be confused. Other numbers, like 3, 2 and 5, were not used for this very reason. Also, the extra "C" in "NCC" was a nod to the Russian abbreviation for the old Soviet Union, "CCCP." According to Jefferies, "If we do anything in space, we (Americans and Russians) have to do it together."

      • Re:sounds like trouble (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @04:32PM (#5001508)
        I'm replying to my own post because nobody around here seems to know nautical acronyms/abbreviations.

        Let's start with the easy ones:

        HMS - His (at the time) Majesty's Ship
        RN - Royal (British) Navy

        Now on to the CC that everyone seems to have missed:

        CC - cruiser (like the HMS Exeter)

        Other examples include:

        DD - destroyer
        FF - frigate
        CV - carrier
        BB - battleship
        SS - submarine
        SSB - ballistic missile submarine
        SSN - nuclear sumarine
        SSBN - ballistic missile nuclear submarine
        CVN - nuclear carrier
        BBN - Wouldn't that be nice...

        Now since CC stands for cruiser and the Enterprise has been described as a cruiser, I assumed that the CC part of NCC stood for "cruiser" (silly me).

        CCN I would have understood. "Nuclear cruiser." NCC looks backwards.

        Now, so far, I've gotten an aeronatuical-ish explaination that just sounds stupid when you consider how the rest of the universe uses nautical terms (the rest of the show ain't exactly Air Force friendly).

        I've also gotten an equally silly explaination of "naval construction contract." NCC-1701 USS Enterprise to me looks like it should mean "some-sort-of-cruiser-variant, hull number 1701, a. k. a. 'USS Enterprise'" just as CVN-65 USS Enterprise means "nuclear aircraft carrier hull number 65, a. k. a. 'USS Enterprise.'"

        If Paramount and fanboys are going to hand-wave, at least try to make it sound more believable than that!

        Oh, wait, this is Star Trek... my bad.

  • Oxymoron? (Score:5, Funny)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:52PM (#5000618) Journal
    The episode's look and feel is amazingly authentic. The story is inventive and the acting surprisingly good.

    Wait a sec. No way it can be authentic to the original and be well acted.

    Much of the charm... of the original... Star Trek was... the wooden acting... not to mention the... inexplicable pauses... in William Shatner's... delivery.

  • My God Jim! (Score:2, Funny)

    by warpSpeed ( 67927 )
    These people have too much time on thier hands...

  • 7 years in Minnesota (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:53PM (#5000625) Homepage Journal

    is 49 human years.

  • Recipe for a flash fried server (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ingredients:
    1 Website
    5 large Star Trek related Movie Files

    Instructions:
    Post 5 movie files on your website. Have someone post a link on slashdot.org. Watch your webserver cook at 300 degrees until the case is a nice golden brown.

  • 7 year production? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bytesmythe ( 58644 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ehtymsetyb>> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:54PM (#5000646)
    They used their own actors, and it took them seven years? Can you see the people age visibly from one scene to the next? That can't be good for continuity. Suddenly the lead actor has gray hair and put on 20 pounds...

    Of course, that kind of thing still wouldn't drop it below the quality of most new shows that issue forth from the bowels of the major networks.
    • Don't forget it's Star Trek, having continuity errors only adds to the authenticity...

    • Re:7 year production? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordKronos ( 470910 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:13PM (#5000831)
      I imagine a large portion of the 7 years was prep work. Building sets, creating props, sewing outfits, writing scripts, etc. Then there is the post production editing and stuff. I didn't see the site mention anywhere how much time was actually spent filming, but I suspect it was only a small fraction of that (1 or maybe 2 years).

      • Re:7 year production? (Score:3, Informative)

        by operagost ( 62405 )
        It says they started shooting on SVHS in 1996, but obviously they couldn't be using any of that footage because of the inferior quality compared to the digital cameras they used in the last year. Not to mention the degradation of the media over time.

  • Incoming http connections! Red Alert! (Score:5, Funny)

    by netsharc ( 195805 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:55PM (#5000654)
    "Captain, I am detecting incoming connection from the Slashdot Quadrant. They have taken all available frequencies! Aarrgghh!!"

    (The console blows up)

    "Red alert, shields up!"

    This looks like a plot by Apple who wants to show off their OS X server (it's mac.com..)

  • Why EMBED? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 )

    Can someone explain to me why webmasters feel the need to embed their movies within their own webpages? Why not just let us download it to our harddrives with a simple right-click? That way (a) people can watch it over and over without added strain on the server and (b) people can distribute the file through other means (p2p, etc.) again saving the webserver. I just don't understand why webmasters make it so difficult to download a movie directly to disk.

    GMD

  • something tells me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by AssFace ( 118098 ) <`stenz77' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:57PM (#5000672) Homepage Journal
    ... that these fellas get laid ALL the time. seriously. chicks dig that shit.

  • Huh? Canopus plague? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Havokmon ( 89874 ) <rick&havokmon,com> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:58PM (#5000679) Homepage Journal
    The U.S.S. Exeter, freshly recrewed and commanded by Capt. John Garrovick, is on a mission to save a ship infected with the deadly Canopus Plague.

    Am I the only one who thought of a scene where the captain opens a hatch to the food reserves, and thousands of video cards drop down on him?

  • Much better than the latest movie... (Score:4, Funny)

    by dagg ( 153577 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:58PM (#5000691) Journal
    This is much better than the latest Star Trek movie. And I bet it'll even be more profitable!

  • Slashdotted - so can somebody tell me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hndrcks ( 39873 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @02:59PM (#5000701) Homepage
    when does the black guy in the red shirt get killed by aliens?

  • Impressive... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd@gmail . c om> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:01PM (#5000721) Homepage
    ...the mac.com server appears to be holding up quite well against our Slashdot attacks - I'm getting over 300K/s.

    My apologies if this does it in, but here are some direct links to the portions of the movies (i.e., not framed in HTML pages)

    Teaser [mac.com]
    Act One [mac.com]
    Act Two [mac.com]
    Act Three [mac.com]
    Tag/End Credits [mac.com]

    I think the episode would be better if the dialouge and video sound quality was as bad as the shots and sound effects of the original, but man - this is impressive ambition to say the least.

  • To boulderly go where no man has gone before. (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:02PM (#5000732) Homepage Journal
    Gimme Stone Trek [stonetrek.com] anyday!

    Also hosted on Camp Chaos [campchaos.com]

    The adventures of the BCC-1701 Magnetize are in Flash.

  • Seriously. I've gotten used to the real Star Trek, where this is rampant, so I just can't watch Star Trek unless time travel is involved. Let me know if they go back in time to chase Klingons or get visited by Borg, and then I'm interested.

  • Take that MPAA! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Telex4 ( 265980 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:04PM (#5000749) Homepage
    What I immediately thought was: cool, people can make fairly decent TV programmes on a tiny budget using the latest digital technologies. It's great seeing people who don't have the backing of the media mega-industry creating their own works. This is just one shred of evidence to add to the list to show that the Internet and open technology is about so much more than centralised shopping and news.

    Then I noticed how long it took them to do it :-)
    • Not to worry Im sure paramount is crafting the DMCA notice as we type. But honestly i thinkit because some guys in a garage came up with something better than rick berman could (see the last scene of of the finale of voyager if you wanna see wooden acting)
  • And it IS quite good, see before the site's saturated and mirror if you can! Now this is the creative power of the Internet, good to see it! And to the people that made the show, good job!

  • Before I watch it, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:08PM (#5000783)

    Will I have to wait another 7 years for the conclusion?

  • The future of movies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:08PM (#5000792)
    This is unbelievably cool, not only for itself, but also as a proof of concept. With some experience and technology, perhaps regular groups of fans will one day shoot good movies in a couple of years. This should give MPAA a lot of food for thought - not only about copy protection but also about producing inferior movies like the Nemesis.

    Are there other projects like this on the web?

  • Just last night, I was thinking about the train wreck that is Star Trek: Nemesis, and thinking, "Ya know, somebody ought to write a different finale for the cast and crew of TNG that would truly do them justice."

    Nemesis was far too tame, and far too stale. If I want Wrath of Khan, I'll watch Wrath of Khan.

    How many times have we seen the Enterprise run right up to the brink of oblivion, only to save the day and turn everything back to normal in time for the next episode? I think I would have written something that resulted not only in the destruction of the Enterprise, but also the deaths of most (if not all) of the crew in a heroic, personal struggle.

    Maybe in a few years one of these fan groups will do TNG justice.

  • Direct download the vids... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:11PM (#5000818) Homepage Journal
    Here are links to directly download the vids, in case anyone hates using a stupid browser plugin:

    http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/teaser.mov [mac.com]
    http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/actone.mov [mac.com]
    http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/acttwo.mov [mac.com]
    http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/actthree.mo v [mac.com]
    http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/tag.mov [mac.com]

  • Of Paramount Importance... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kaemaril ( 266849 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:12PM (#5000825)
    I predict that the Paramount Legal Away Team will soon be setting phasers on "heavy bitchslap"...

  • Old-style klingons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SAN1701 ( 537455 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:15PM (#5000850)
    Is it just me, or the old fashioned klingons were far better vilains that the new ones? I mean, old klingons were cynical, smart, dissimulated, and very dangerous.

    But NG's (or motion-picture) style klingons are irracional, fanatic, even dumb, and it's by no way credible that this kind of civilization would ever manage to build any kind of science or engineering.

    Note that both know how to be brutal, but the first ones used brutality as a tool for their objectives, and, for the new ones, it's an almost biological characteristic.

    I remember that I've read, in a magazine, that the klingons of the 60's represented the enemies of the U.S. in that time (China, USSR), and, the klingons from 80 to date, represented the new ones (fanatics). It may be, but, as vilains, the previous generation of Klingons were way more fun.

    • Re:Old-style klingons (Score:5, Interesting)

      by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:25PM (#5000928) Homepage
      I think they explained this by having some sort of "north" and "south" Klingons. The North klingons were the old ones, the ones who were more intelligent, who created most of the technological inroads. The Southern klingons were gun-crazed rednecks who slaughtered the Northies and took over the empire. And that's why the Klingon empire is now doomed to fade into the background of the Trek universe. Right? :) Maybe I have it backwards.

      • Re:Old-style klingons (Score:5, Interesting)

        by steveha ( 103154 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:54PM (#5001200) Homepage
        The new-style Klingons made their first appearance in the first theatre movie (Star Trek: The Motion Picture). Gene Roddenberry was asked why the Klingons looked different, and he explained that "they always looked that way".

        There is just no good way to explain why all Klingons in movies and TV from Next Generation on are bumpy, and all Klingons in the prequel TV show Enterprise are bumpy, and the 1000-years-previous holy guy Keh'less (or however you spell it) was bumpy, but all the Klingons ever met by Kirk looked like Fu Manchu.

        The word "retcon", short for "retroactive continuity", was coined for situations like this one.

        steveha

        • Re:Old-style klingons (Score:5, Insightful)

          by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Thursday January 02, 2003 @04:01PM (#5001280) Homepage Journal
          There is just no good way to explain why all Klingons in movies and TV from Next Generation on are bumpy, and all Klingons in the prequel TV show Enterprise are bumpy, and the 1000-years-previous holy guy Keh'less (or however you spell it) was bumpy, but all the Klingons ever met by Kirk looked like Fu Manchu.

          Actually, there's an excellent explanation: the budget for the old TV show was much smaller than the movie and subsequent TV show budgets.

          I don't know why people always overlook the obvious.

          • Re:Old-style klingons (Score:3, Insightful)

            by steveha ( 103154 )
            Nonsense. It doesn't take much budget to make Klingons look bumpy. They could have done it in the 60's; they just hadn't thought of it yet.

            If Gene Roddenberry had decided that Klingons had big bumpy foreheads, the makeup guys would have made it so.

            steveha

  • Now if I can only... (Score:3)

    by RumGunner ( 457733 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:18PM (#5000871) Homepage
    Beat the rest of the slashdotters in getting the movie from the homepage.mac.com site! Then I will rule the geek universe with my advanced knowledge of everything and anything that is Trek related! That will obviously make me have more sex appeal with the ladies, just like Cpt. Kirk!

  • fanfic taken to a deeply disturbing extreme (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Fun Guy ( 21791 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:20PM (#5000886) Homepage Journal
    When you say to your friends, "You know what would have been cool? If they had gone to a planet where...", and they agree, that's normal fan behavior.

    When you actually write up the idea you were thinking of in a 200 word concept and share it with your friends, who all like it, that's committed fan behavior.

    When you flesh out the concept to a 10 page script treatment, that's borderline wierd fan behavior. If your friends offer revisions to correct continuity errors, that's definitely wierd fan behavior.

    When you write out an entire script in three acts and actually perform it with your friends, that's borderline obsessive fan behavior. Defintiely obsessive if you film the process.

    When you perform it with homemade costumes, props, etc., and have special effects and a musical score to go with the footage, and then reformat the film as downloadable Quicktime videos for all the world to see, you are ready for film school.

    Either that, or the plastic pointy ears you wear to bed every night are cutting off the flow of blood to the brain.

  • Missing one thing: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mudhiker ( 15850 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:22PM (#5000905)
    There's just about everything you'd want from a Star Trek episode but the Captain getting it on with a green-skinned vixen down on the planet. Darnit, I wanna see some alien nookie.

  • Whether or not a library was linked... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa ( 592447 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:24PM (#5000924)
    ... this looks like a derivative work to me.
  • So I can ask, so, how does it feel to not get laid for 7 years?

  • The only way I'm going to watch some grainy, home-produce Star Trek episode if it includes one of those hot 'green skinned' chicks who's wearing a Jennifer Lopez style dress and has an obligatory interpretive dance scene.

  • The Difference (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yndrd ( 529288 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:31PM (#5000978) Homepage
    I can almost guarantee that this production, however amateur, is infinitely superior to any recent Paramount effort for one simple reason:

    The people who made it are passionate about the subject matter.

    The best years of Star Trek were when people with a love for the material were in charge of the shows/movies. I'll let the Slashdot crowd argue about when those were, but I think the current failure of Star Trek isn't one of story or budget or marketing: it is one of passion.

    Commercial Star Trek is a cheap hustle, fleecing idealistic and naive fans. It's always been that to some extent, but there was once some feeling behind it. Too bad Star Trek fans are now just a demographic to be exploited.

  • Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dswensen ( 252552 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @03:32PM (#5000984) Homepage
    I'm sure many of the comments here will amount to "these guys have too much time on their hands" or "haw-haw, these guys can't get laid," but I say good for them. Criticizing and tearing something down by making snarky comments on the Internet is the easiest and least impressive thing in the world.

    Actually doing something is hard. Especially something as eccentric as this. These guys had the passion and the perseverance to make something -- to start a project many people would consider too expensive and time-consuming to bother with, and they saw it through to completion. I have to respect that.

    More than once I've heard people say something like "wouldn't it be cool to build some cheap sets and make our own episode of (Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Files, My Mother the Car)", but these guys actually went ahead and did it. Which, despite whatever shortcomings the film project might have, is a hell of a lot more impressive than sitting around talking smack about it.

    I watched this a few days ago, actually, and it was fun to watch. The people who made it have a lot of love for their subject matter, and put a lot of work into the little details, which I appreciate. And that big pink dinosaur is a riot -- and as special effects go, still beats the heck out of that "lava monster" Spock mind-melded with in that classic Trek episode.

    So I say good for them, and I hope it doesn't take another seven years for the sequel.

    • Bravo!! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @04:22PM (#5001439) Homepage Journal


      I fully agree with you here. Those people who go around poo-pooing other people's projects as being a waste of time, etc. never have anything clever or interesting to show of their own. These star trek movie people went out there and did something. Which is a lot more than most people can say. If everyone listened to the naysayers, we'd still not have airplanes, rock-and-roll, or computers in our homes.


      As for the criticisms that these people aren't going to get laid, I can tell you that this is a huge misconception. This is the real deal from someone who has seen this situation play itself out... If you think it takes a rock band to get four guys laid, then you haven't filmed a movie before. No matter how silly of a movie you have made... if it is screened in public and people know about it, you will have a line of people (male and female) begging to be in your next movie. The difference being that a rock band may attract groupies, but the members of a band can only offer the groupies a brush with celebrity. A movie director can create celebrity. Do you know what some people will do to achieve celebrity status? That guy on Jackass ate a snowcone made from his own urine. Use your imagination.

      I've so far viewed the trailer. If you think that was easy or cheap to make, guess again. Props, costumes, and sets all add up real quick. These people spent a lot of money on this project. Perhaps the only area they are lacking on that keeps this thing from being mistakeable for one of the original episodes is the lighting. Lighting is what usually seperates amateur from professional looking movies. If you go back and look at the lighting on the old star trek shows, you'll see it's pretty dynamic. For simplicity's sake, these people used overhead lights like you see in soap operas. Dead easy to arrange, but gives shadows on eyes unless you have fill-lights.


  • .... we're gonna get sued! ....


    This is what the creators will be saying as soon as they see a Paramount Studios IP address in their web logs :)


  • Wow, I thought I was nerd...but after seeing that, I think I'm not to bad after all.

  • You mean the thing was watchable and should be watchable again as soon as this story is off the front page.

  • The damn thing, dubbed "The Savage Empire," is actually watchable.

    Not any more...
  • You've got to understand something about Minnesota, most people get snowed in the better half of the year. Actors can't act if they can't make it out their house. Between the above, and factoring in car stalls from the cold winters and the occasional polar bear attack, it's no wonder it took so long to finish...
    ok, ok... so I exaggerated... a little.. (it's actually been quite balmy in MN as of late, thank you global warming!)

  • 4:3 vs. 16:9 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by leomekenkamp ( 566309 ) on Thursday January 02, 2003 @04:08PM (#5001335)
    The one thing I absolutely *loved* about TOS (The Original Series) was that they had 16:9 displays everywhere. This was ofcourse years before anyone in the electric biz started talking about this format for television sets.
    Such a shame that feature is missing, and they have the boring old 4:3 display layout. Maybe NCC-1701 was more advanced than any of it's sister ships? It was Starfleets flagship ...
  • . . . but they cut me out, in an effort to be as authentic as possible.

  • Has anyone noticed... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neurojab ( 15737 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @01:36AM (#5004563)
    That this thing is actually quite bad? The dialogue is rushed, the acting horrible. I wanted to like it. Oh well.

    Here's what's got me wondering... They spent seven years tweaking every nuance of this. Why would someone do this? Why?

    They're actually trying to tell us something. We could spend our time consuming products we don't need... watching mindless drivel on TV, or we could "do something" by making a cheap knock-off of a cheap TV show from 30+ years ago. Millions of years from now, our society and culture will only be known through the continuing "Star Trek" parodies. For Auld Lang Syne!

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close