Star Trek Continues Kickstarter 2.0 109
The Real Dr John writes Vic Mignogna and crew have launched their second Kickstarter campaign to produce 2 or more additional episodes of Star Trek Continues, a fan-based web series finishing up the 5 year mission of the original Star Trek television series. The first Kickstarter campaign raised enough money for 4 episodes, 3 of which have already been aired. Depending on how much funding they get this time, they plan to produce up to 4 additional episodes.
Damnit Jim (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a doctor not a banker!
Amazing work.. (Score:5, Insightful)
These people are really knocking it out of the ballpark with the episodes they have done already. Seriously they got JJ spanked when it comes to the original series.
Re:Amazing work.. (Score:5, Funny)
They're okay, but not nearly enough lens flare, and man oh man, shot length is insane. I really do demand far more quick cuts and dialogue needs to be cut to about three words per cut. Being a modern viewer, I don't want to hear all that blah-blah-blah, and just want to be nailed with a solid hour of uninterpretable action, shallow dialogue, even shallow characterization, and bad (or possibly even missing) plotting.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Agree with you on pretty much everything. As for JJ Abrams's, there's a distiction to be made: the first one was actually somewhat enjoyable, despite the absurdities (red matter? WTF?). In Into Darkness, absolutely nothing made sense. Really, plot and character-wise, it was worse than Yor.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amazing work.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I don't have a problem in-universe with time travel via Red Matter. It makes about as much sense as going to high warp around a star and going back in time. Red Matter does something with altering or destabilizing mass to an extreme degree, causing a singularity which certainly could mimic a star's effect with the warp drive or simply causes a wormhole with an opening into the past. It's not too far outside of the usual faux science that Trek uses.
What I am tired of is Star Trek relying on time travel. Just stop. Please.
I know this isn't hard science fiction, and time travel is a common plot device in soft sci-fi, but at least make it rare or something. I get a headache with the epic things they do with time travel and how it still all ends up with them right back with everything the way it should be at the end of the episode/movie.
All that said, it actually made sense for a reboot. Particularly since time travel was set up in canon to be so damn easy to do. Using time travel for a reboot is consistent, albeit annoying, since you really are just setting up an alternate time line, not "fixing the past". It's one of the few time travel stories in Trek to actually truly display the massive consequences of changing a timeline.
As for the Klingons... eh. I had more of a problem with the transporter that lets Khan transport all the way to Qo'noS from Earth. WTF does that bad-guy Starfleet admiral need a dreadnought starship for when he could just transport megatons worth of weaponry through the Klingons' planetary defenses all the way from Earth? If they can transport a man, I doubt they would have trouble with a photon torpedo/bomb.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? You're right. I guess my brain rose-tinted the first film in comparison to Into Darkness, in very much the same way as it seems like a good idea to eat someone's dry shit than for my mouth to be blasted with diarrhea from three truckers who live on a strict diet of grilled cheese. Or, for an even grosser metaphor, how it seems The Phantom Menace isn't that bad when compared to Attack of the Clones. At least I can find amusement in seeing Rob Roy "pull out his little laser sword and go to town
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you found some enjoyment out of them because I found them to just be dreadful and I have a feeling history will NOT be kind to them, in a decade we'll look back at them and groan as much as we do at something like Attack Of The Clones (although to give them credit neither movie was as bad as Phantom Menace but I'd rather watch Ice Pirates than that snoozefest).
I'm very sorry to break this to you; you're probably around my age (~40) it sounds like, and yes, people of our generation did not like the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I really don't get it either. I know someone from that generation (now 25) who loves the Prequels (esp. #3) because she was young when they came out. She seems reasonably intelligent otherwise, she's not a complete moron or anything, so I really don't get it. She acknowledges that the dialog wasn't great but that doesn't seem to be deal-breaker for her. It's weird. Like you said, they were rotten, boring, and racist, and the VFX (which were admittedly amazing for the time) simply weren't enough t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought everyone liked the 3rd one the best of all the Prequels. I haven't seen it myself yet, but every single time I complain about the Prequels to someone and then I mention that I haven't seen the 3rd, they say that I missed the best one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(red matter? WTF?)
Yea cus dilithium crystals are right on the money and ignoring that the correct application of teleport solves pretty much most of plots was soo rock solid.
You fans are all the same. You point out what is wrong with the new while it was twice as bad in the original. And please don't start with "it was intellectual". it was only if your a Texan neo nazi. " Oh.. killing people different to me bad?"
It is star trek, the softest crappiest (technospeak anyone) form of sci fi invented by man. Futurama is m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
About the only actor in the reboots that I feel comes anywhere close to the original is Karl Urban as McCoy. Pine is just awful, and other than wearing the same shirt, has nothing in common with Shatner's Kirk. Zachary Quinto could probably be a passable Spock, if he wasn't waited with bad dialogue and pointless asides like the romantic angle with Uruha.
All in all, the reboots to me are little more than a series of films that vaguely resemble Star Trek, but in no substantial way evoke the original series' s
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Chekov was decent (mostly because he didn't get enough screen time for the demented monkeys running the show to fuck up his characterization too badly).
Re: (Score:3)
Karl Urban does a great job as McCoy. It might help that he is the only one that plays a grown up in the new series.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about sad, but it's hardly surprising. On the one hand you have a group of people who greatly enjoy the source material and want to make more of the same for likeminded fans, while on the other hand you have a bunch of money-grubbing studio execs who want to make big bucks by milking a franchise and simmering it down to the lowest common denominator.
The problem with Abrams is that he left it on the heat too long and had to fill out the mixture with leftovers from his other movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Go play in the street and let the real Star Ttek fans enjoy these new episodes created by Vic Mignogna and crew.
Sometimes that whoosh sound overhead isn't the Starship Enterprise going by...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how ADD sufferers would prefer the cinematic version of an epileptic seizure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They really, really are. My god, this Spock is SO MUCH better than Quinto's it's embarassing. All the cast is pretty great (with the exception of Grant - he's not an actor, and it unfortunately shows), with the new Scotty being the highlight of the series. Really, they god pretty much everything - pacing, writing, acting - right. Which is the main problem, I guess, since they enter uncanny valley territory. The new Kirk is great, very well done, very well researched, fights like a drunk Wrestlemania partici
Re: (Score:2)
Ob. Space Balls reference (Score:3)
Re:So how are they (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't bad at all. While I won't say they are "great", I enjoyed watching them and they certainly weren't a waste of my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the two reboot films.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a lot of buried rage there. Careful or it will flare up.
Re: (Score:2)
Like a lens flare?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's a YMMV thing. I won't call them terrible, and obviously they put a lot of work into them, but I just can't watch them. I've tried. I haven't been able to make it more than ten minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
I found episode 1 a bit iffy, but episode 3 (the mirror-mirror continuation) was much better. I haven't had a chance to watch episode 2 yet.
Re: (Score:1)
They've only made 3 episodes, and one of them was a fucking mirror one? The DS9 ones sucked; the Enterprise one sucked, and I can only assume the TOS one sucked (I haven't actually seen it). Even the Star Trek Online mirror missions suck! Of all the things to waste their limited money on...!
Re: (Score:2)
So, having never seen the original episode that they're continuing, you don't really have any basis for comparison, then, do you? You've just seen a bunch of spinoff stuff that didn't live up to the original.
Re: (Score:2)
Deep Space 9 did live up to the original (and perhaps surpassed it), and even Enterprise was better than most people give it credit for. It was only the mirror episodes, not the series they were in, that sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the mirror episodes, not the series in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the mirror episodes in Trek. They probably had the best continuity of the whole series.
The first few minutes of the Enterprise one was great (takes place right at the end of the Star Trek: First Contact)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I discovered Star Trek Continues after it was posted on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago. This series is now responsible for jump-starting my children's interest in Star Trek, so I rate it highly! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever find a way to download them, please post here and let me know. Us old-timers don't trust this new-fangled intarweb too much - I'd much rather download them, burn them to a DVD and both have a copy forever (everything on the WWW is temporary) and easily pull it out to watch it big-screen.
Re: (Score:3)
They are very good. They get all the notes of the original as close to exactly-right as you could possibly expect of a production. I would go so far as to say a studio would do worse because they'd want to interject some new concept.
It takes me 5 minutes of each episode to get used to "Kirk's" higher-pitched voice, but that incongruity fades rather quickly. And, sorry, but I keep expecting Grant to unleash a robot.
Regardless, the first three were better "TV" than most of what's on broadcast today. And I
Re: (Score:2)
> I would go so far as to say a studio would do worse because they'd want to interject some new concept.
Cue the precocious kid and annoying pet...
Re: (Score:1)
ST-C gets it right in so many little ways: camera angles and framing, scene setups, facial expressions, and just the right amount of cheese. Episode 2, especially, was excellent in this regard. Best one liner (IMO) is Kirk yelling at the ensign.. ."Get a hold of yourself, mister!". Gave me goose bumps. Mignogna seriously channeled Shatner during that one.
Re:So how are they (Score:5, Informative)
I've really enjoyed them so far. For me they rank in order of air date: the first one was pleasing mainly for the return of Apollo and the actor who played the role in TOS, the second is a really solid story in the original style helped no end by casting Lou Ferrigno as on Orion slaver and an admirable performance by (sorry, had to look this up) Fiona Vroom* and the third was an excellent continuation of Mirror, Mirror.
Vig Mignogna plays Shatner to a T and easily surpasses him in the role of Mirror Kirk, while Chris Doohan (yes, it's his son) has obviously spent many an hour watching his old man and gets the accent just right. The series as a whole is well worth watching and I'll definitely be throwing some money their way if it means I get to enjoy more of the same; the show has clearly been put together by people who have spent far more time watching the original series than I. There are a number of small guest appearances that will bring a smile to your face, not least of which is Michael Dorn.
*Points also earned for having such a cool name.
Re:So how are they (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess this means I've been living under a rock, but this hasn't been on my radar to watch at all yet. Are the first three pretty good? Are they adequately carrying on the legacy?
My background: I grew up watching TOS, was at first excited and then bored by TNG and the rest of the Berman series, and had my interest renewed by Abrams' films, which I believe are reviled primarily by Berman "endless meetings" era fans, and not first-run TOS fans. That said:
Star Trek Continues (TOS-C?) is, so far, surprisingly good. The sets, costumes, tools, and effects are easily equal to TOS Remastered. But besides that, the plots are interesting and after you get over different people playing the characters, it's like episodes of TOS that for some reason you hadn't seen yet.
Wife and I both loved them, and my 20 year old daughter, who grew up watching TOS Remastered, has given it her conditional seal of approval.
Something we all agree on is that there needs to be more episodes. Daughter holds back full approval only because there hasn't been enough so far to have an informed opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II is far better. And they just released their latest episode Mind-Sifter in December.
Gotta disagree strongly . . . (Score:2)
With that said, they're all interesting. Check 'em all out, make your own decision.
Re: (Score:2)
ST-C absolutely dead-on nails the look and feel of ST-TOS in every way.
Seconded. Other than the actors being different, it really, honestly, truly feels like you're watching lost episodes of ST:TOS straight out of the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
Go watch Mind-Sifter on YouTube and compare it to any of ST-C's episodes. The difference is like night and day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't get the lighting and camera right? Are you fucking shitting me? I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you work for Continues.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen Mind-Sifter? ST-C looks good until you compare it to New Voyages, and then you realize that it's not really all that great after all. And sure ST-C had Lou Ferrigno and Michael Forest, but New Voyages has had Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Denise Crosby. They also don't violate established canon like ST-C does.
Re: (Score:3)
I watched until 5:50. 2 Most important things:
1) Chris Doohan is spooky (son of James Doohan, reprising his father as "Scotty")
2) Has a holodeck like ST Next Generation, but says "Where no MAN has gone before" in opening credits
Aside from that, it wasn't horrible, in fact they capture the 60's style so well that it's like a really good Vegas tribute act, an Elvis-Karaoke worth paying a compliment to.
Re: (Score:1)
tos animated series has a holo dec and it was originally going to be included into star trek phase t the series in the 70s had star trek went to tv route vs going with the feature film for the original crew.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched until 5:50. 2 Most important things:
1) Chris Doohan is spooky (son of James Doohan, reprising his father as "Scotty")
2) Has a holodeck like ST Next Generation, but says "Where no MAN has gone before" in opening credits
Aside from that, it wasn't horrible, in fact they capture the 60's style so well that it's like a really good Vegas tribute act, an Elvis-Karaoke worth paying a compliment to.
That some people today are insistent about the use of gender-agnostic nouns doesn't mean that those using lesser-so nouns in the past were bigots. I highly doubt TOS's use of the word "man" was meant as a slight toward women considering Roddenberry's vision and the fact that it was the first television program showing a white and black person kissing. The entire premise of Star Trek Continues is that it's a continuation of the original series, which used the word "man", so I doubt they intended it to be a s
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek's kiss was the first which American viewers got to see. So not the first TV kiss worldwide, but still the first in the US, at a time when British TV was probably never seen in the US unlike today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They are doing a great job maintaining TOS "feel", Vic does a great job as Kirk, Spock is so-so, Bones is well.... a tad limp. Overall they do pretty well being crowd funded and free,(as in BEER), I have looked at the other ones including the Farragut spinoff, most of the others as not quite to par, Hell call me an old fogey, I grew up TOS and enjoy seeing what could have been.
Re: (Score:3)
Vic does a great job as Kirk
He's got the look and mannerisms down but he just does not have the command presence and the authority voice... he sounds wimpy and whiney. I think he needs to find a drill sergeant to work with him on it.
Re:So how are they (Score:5, Informative)
They _are_ the original series. Same sets, same costumes, same props, just a different cast.
It's not a "reboot" or "reimagining", it's actually an attempt to continue the original Star Trek as though it had never ended. While there naturally are some differences in writing style, the similarities to the original series are amazing.
If you liked Star Trek (1966), watch it. If you preferred Star Trek (2009), then it may not be your thing.
Kirk on Fan Films (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Kirk: "Where's... ... Mr. ... Spock?"
...
Kirk: "Good girl."
Sends a shiver down my spine.
Re:No!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Expect they can't sell them. As long as they give them away for free as fan based art, Paramount will tolerate the infringement. Start charging, probably not.
Re:No!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Paramount is awful at that - they actually tried to shut down a bunch of fan sites many years ago because it infringed on their trademarks.
CBS (who owns Paramount and pretty much reserves Paramount for movies) has been far more tolerant and I think actually gave their approval. Not to make money, but at least CBS won't pursue action against them for making this.
Effectively, CBS has blessed this work of fan fiction...
"Kirkstarter 2.0" (Score:5, Funny)
Submitter totally missed the "Kirk-starter" pun.
Anyway, I enjoyed the first three episodes. They capture the mood and cheese of the original series quite well. I've donated a few dollars to the second run as well now.
Re: (Score:3)
I have as well. I feel it's money better spent than the money I forked over for the reboot films. At least when I look at the screen, I'm seeing what I consider the Star Trek experience, as opposed to a generic action film that happens to have the USS Enterprise.
It's good (Score:5, Informative)
Star Trek Continues is surprisingly good, IF and only IF you happen to like the old-school filming and storytelling style employed by the original Star Trek. It's an amazingly faithful recreation which deserves a lot of props for hitting the mark so carefully.
Let Star * die. (Score:2)
Star Trek, Star Wars...
These were shows/movies made decades ago.
Great for there time, but outdated now. Even reboots and new episodes featuring the next generation, brings in the money playing off of our Nostolga. They have to do so much work to explain why the cannon is changing because having the old shows showing things with limited effects and a different view on the progression of technology. Just clutters a good movie or show if just given a new universe.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's as simple as that. I don't understand the "I hate it so it must be purged from the Universe" mentality.
First season of TNG sucked.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The End (Score:2)
I saw my first "studio quality" amateur replica of the Enterprise bridge set more years ago than I care to think about --- and as much as I admire the effort put into projects like this, I believe it is time to move on.
The modern era of science fiction is close on to a century old now. It's an enormous body of work in all media and all genres --- space opera, speculative fiction, etc., etc. --- that the geek has largely ignored for decades.
Why should the big boys like Disney, Pixar and Marvel have all th
Re: (Score:2)
more like 60-70 years rather than 100... ignored for decades? as if.
speculative science fiction hasn't had a good run on hollywood in a while. just big explosions shit. star trek into the darkness had me thinking it's shit in the first 10 minutes. put enterprise underwater, do some stupid volcano stopping shit, break prime directive and all that in the first 10 minutes. it's like the watched a parody of into the darkness and then made a film based on the parody, what a paradox.
Re: (Score:2)
This *IS* Star Trek! (Score:3)
The first fan-fiction Star Trek I watched was "New Voyages" a number of years ago. As a fan of Trek since TOS was in syndication in the early 70's (I was only 4 in 1966!) I have to admit, I was quite pleasantly surprised! Then, along came Star Trek Continues, running in pretty much the same vein, and with similar quality to "New Voyages".
As others here have said, this really *IS* like watching "lost episodes" from TOS! Both my wife and I really enjoy this! It is like getting brand new Star Trek stories, again... just a LONG wait between each one.
It is also quite telling, when you see that both of these high-quality fan-fiction productions are actually getting the ORIGINAL actors and actresses to reprise their TOS roles in various ways... this is where "time-travel" stories are actually being used in an enjoyable and meaningful way. For example, "World Enough and Time" (By New Voyages) was only the 2'nd Star Trek story to bring tears to my eyes! (The first was "Inner Light" on TNG.) Yeah, it was THAT good!
I look forward to watching what BOTH of these top-notch fan-fiction production groups do in the days ahead! If the Powers That Be would REALLY PAY ATTENTION, they would see what the majority of the Star Trek fan base REALLY WANTS.
Those "new" movies don't even deserve more than this one-line mention. I only saw the 1'st one. That did it for me. No more.
Live Long and Prosper, New Voyages and Star Trek Continues!!
Hope for the Future (Score:2)
Star Trek Continues is a fantastic fan series. I've been watching Star Trek fan films since the first episode of Star Trek New Voyages, Come What May, was released. It has been amazing to witness the subculture grow with the technology that enables its existence.
And consider what this says about Star Trek as a cultural force. It was an optimistic message during pessimistic times. In the 60s people needed hope for the future. Star Trek filled that need so well that now, in very different (but still uncertai
hadn't seen these before (Score:2)
Incredible (Score:1)
Re:Incredible - but (Score:1)