First Vignette From ‘Star Trek Continues’ Fan Series Picks Up Where TOS Left Off | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

First Vignette From ‘Star Trek Continues’ Fan Series Picks Up Where TOS Left Off August 6, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Fan Productions , trackback

Over the weekend at the Shore Leave convention in Baltimore, MD, the new fan series Star Trek: Continues debuted their first vignette. The new show featuring Vig Mignogna as James T. Kirk along with Chris Doohan as Scotty and Grant Imahara as Sulu, hopes to continue the five year mission following final episode from the third season. This first vignette shows how they are bridging the gap. Watch it below.        

 

 

First Vignette From ‘Star Trek Continues’ picks up where TOS left off

The Star Trek Continues vignette premièred to a capacity crowd in the main room at Shore Leave 34 and it is now available online. Show star/producerVic Mignogna was on hand along with co-star Chris Doohan (who is playing his father’s role of Scotty).  The vignette emphasizes how the new fan series picks up following the third season of Star Trek.

Star Trek Continues from Star Trek Continues on Vimeo.

Astute fans will note how the vignette starts with a shot-by-shot recreation the final moments of the final episode of Star Trek, "Turnabout Intruder." That final scene from the original series ended with Kirk, Scotty and Spock going into the turbolift. But then the Star Trek Continues vignette shows us what happened next. Show star and producer Mignogna tells TrekMovie that this was their way of bridging their fan series with the original Star Trek. The first episode of STC, which will be shooting in October, will take place in what Mignogna sees as a notional fourth season for the original series, and will carry on the five year mission.



Star Trek Continues (R) kick off their first vignette by recreating final moments of the last original Star Trek episode "Turnabout Intruder"

The Star Trek Continues team plan to release another vignette on October 1.

STC Cast Interview

The website Crave has released a video interview with the cast, which you can watch below.

 

 


 

Comments

1. Emperor Mike of the Empire - August 6, 2012

I like this Show!. It’s Exciting!.
Wow!. Really Cool how they did this. Can’t wait to see more.
Geeking out here!.

2. mj - August 6, 2012

Wow!!! This raises the bar significantly on fan productions. Well done, Star Trek Continues crew…BRAVO!!!!

3. MJ - August 6, 2012

I just hope they go widescreen on the production. What would be the point on using the old 3-2 format???

4. Tanner Waterbury - August 6, 2012

NICE! Most Excellent. Now I am looking forward to both Phase II AND Continues. I’m really liking the lighting on continues, its like they also used some sort of older filter to give it a retro look. kudos to the Continues crew.

5. Quark - August 6, 2012

WOW. The quality of this is very high. Can’t wait for more!

6. TrekMadMeWonder - August 6, 2012

I am tired of vignettes! Although this was fine.

I WANT MORE TOS!!!!

And I can’t wait!

7. Mikephys - August 6, 2012

This was a great surprise. I’m certainly looking forward to more from this crew.

8. Anthony Lewis - August 6, 2012

WOW two really great one offs in one day. I hope you put up the Phase II one as well.

@MJ Unlike the Phase II show these guys have said they will shoot in HD but want to create the same aspect ratio as the original show.

9. Illogical - August 6, 2012

Well done gentleman, well done. Captured the look and the feel and probably the best audio I’ve heard yet. Lighting, spot on. I believe Mr Mignogna has one of my TOS Functioning Bluetooth Communicators!

10. Oh No, Odo - August 6, 2012

No thanks. This just seems wrong. No more recasting old characters, no more reboots. We need a new crew, new ship and new show. Roddenberry was all about going forward, not back. Go forward with a new show and new crew.

11. Admiral Kirk - August 6, 2012

PAAAAASSSSSS!

12. Mr. AtoZ - August 6, 2012

I’m fine with the recasting, it’s about Kirk, Spock and the crew…not Shatner, Nimoy and the crew…it’s the characters not the actors…

13. JohnRambo - August 6, 2012

WOW! i’m really impressed by this! Great work! They should make a whole series of this:-D

14. p'trick - August 6, 2012

Why does the doorway appear so large? Lol.

15. TrekMadeMeWonder - August 6, 2012

Oh geez.

I just watched the 2nd video. Shouldnt have.

Although Althena is amazing! Chris is too.

16. Capt Dunsel - August 6, 2012

Cool to see Gabe Kerner’s name as well! The effects are in good hands!

17. Michael Hall - August 6, 2012

Spock’s moire scanner-thingy was spinning way too fast, while the rest of the bridge instrumentation didn’t change at all. DIASASTER, EPIC FAIL!

Just kidding. This actually looked pretty good (the concluding shot of the TOS Enterprise is especially wonderful), and an interesting contrast to the new Phase 2 vignette also released today. Hope the rivalry between the two productions can eventually become a friendly one, and that each will inspire the other to new creative heights. Definitely, a lot to look forward to. My sincere thanks to everyone on both teams, having seen first-hand how much hard work goes into putting these shows out. You’re all just awesome, whether you know it or not. :-)

18. legend of link - August 6, 2012

Wow indeed. Not bad at all. I was worried after seeing that sneak peek a few weeks back, but this has actually convinced me to check it out. Nicccce.

19. Pat - August 6, 2012

That was fantastic! Can’t wait to see more.

20. Phil - August 6, 2012

Not quite prepared to hang up my ‘fan flick critic’ badge just yet, but this was passable.

Damn it, no Hugo award nomination yet, Please ignore the above referenced comment….

21. BaronByng - August 6, 2012

That was pretty good!

no really! It both nailed it and took it further. Got the characters right without seeming like a parody. Pacing could be a bit tighter, but – for a minute there I thought I was watching parts of the original episode.

Congrats. Looking forward to seeing more.

22. Adrian - August 6, 2012

Wow! It looks remarkably like TOS! Except everybody looks slightly less attractive and has bad hair. ;)

23. Kevin - August 6, 2012

Wow – very excited to see a whole episode; “McCoy” is still getting his space legs, but overall, a great start!

24. Phil - August 6, 2012

@22. Yo, Adrian….you take your life in your own hands here if the faithful perceive you as being negative toward Phase II. Cawley could present 60 minutes of test patterns and you’ll be ripped to shreds if you criticize it….

25. Spike - August 6, 2012

I loved it. Chris you’re the best Scotty since your Dad, I know he’s proud. Michael Hall, I completely agree with you. Well said.

26. Cobra Commander - August 6, 2012

Really, really good! Great acting. Love it!

27. Phil - August 6, 2012

Aw, s**t….mixed up my fan fic production companies….

28. Star Trek Baby Boomer - August 6, 2012

Ok, like most of the cast here, but “Bones” was an irascible, ironic dry wit, not a wise-guy, he was not so easy to peg and had inner turmoil, hope the new guy “GETS” that, I do not want him to be a copy, but at least similar.

29. Anthony Lewis - August 6, 2012

@24 Phil

I don’t think that is the case at all. I just think that most people would be fine with critical words as long as people did so within the context of the work.

Fan films aren’t professional production and shouldn’t be looked at with the same critical eye. It should be judged on what it is and compared to similar things.

I mean it seems crazy to watch a Batman fan film and compare it to a Chris Nolan Batman flick. Of course one is going to look bad next to the other.

Feel free to critique those things together but to me it is apples and oranges.

30. George - August 6, 2012

This looks GREAT, looking forward to seeing more and Chris Doohan is perfect.

31. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

I enjoyed the clip. Well done to the cast and crew! Especially Chris Doohan who nailed his line!

But while I understand why they filmed it in 4:3, they should have done it in 16×9 format.

Shooting in 16×9 these days is limiting what the audience is allowed to see. That isn’t right, in my opinion. “Star Trek Continues” is giving us less than what is provided by “Star Trek Phase II”. I sure hope the production staff change their minds about this.

32. Uberbot - August 6, 2012

Photography, lighting, and visual effects are better than Phase II. Aside from Chris, the guy playing Sulu and the gal playing Uhura, I’m not sure I care for the casting…

33. Will Johnson - August 6, 2012

Just a quick note to the editors/shooters… you crossed the 180 axis on that opening back and forth with Kirk… and as such, it looks a bit off. Kirk should be looking towards screen right if everyone else is looking towards screen left in the back and forth.

That said, this is really really good as far as copying the style of TOS. Well done!

34. Romulus - August 6, 2012

I’m finally sold
Great video

35. Mikey1091 - August 6, 2012

That vignette wasn’t long enough, damnit! It was still awesome, though! Can’t wait for more!!!!

36. Lord Garth, formerly of Izar - August 6, 2012

Awesome

Chris wish we had a forger to change your birth certificate brother
You should have gotten the role in the film

37. Anthony Lewis - August 6, 2012

BTW I thought Chris Doohan was awesome playing his fathers role. The voice he did was probably as close to Scotty’s as we will ever get.

*applause*

38. Ensign RedShirt - August 6, 2012

That is easily the most professional-looking Trek fan film I’ve seen.

MJ-

TOS was shot in 4×3. They want to make a faithful recreation of the show, right down to the aspect ratio.

39. Spike - August 6, 2012

I sincerely hope that if this animated Star Trek gets off the ground, Chris Doohan gets the part of Scotty.

40. Allen Williams - August 6, 2012

I agree that it needs to be 16×9. I was disappointed when I saw just how bad TNG’s “proper” 16×9 version looked (with lighting in the way and scratches on the other side), because I really wanted to see it that way. Unfortunately it never occurred to them to keep the entire frame safe.

I also think it would have been a good idea for these guys to collaborate with phase 2. By collaborating, you share the costs of running the set which helps keep the costs down.

41. Mudd - August 6, 2012

This wasnt bad. Like a couple others, Im not too excited with the retro 4×3 ratio. The best parts of the clip for me were Chris Doohan as Scotty and Alena Van Arendonk as Janice Lester. I know what Kim Stinger is capable of from her time on Phase 2 and other commercials Ive seen on Youtube. Grant Imihara looks like he should be able to do well as Sulu. I need more data to make an informed opinion on the kid playing Chekov. Im not Sold on Todd Haberkorn yet as Spock. I feel his talents would have been used better as Sulu. As to Chuck Huber, If I didnt know ahead of time that he was supposed to be McCoy, Id be asking who he was. As others have said, I hope he grows into the role as John Kelley has done in Phase 2. Frankly There has only been one other man to me who nailed McCoy since Deforrest Kelly out of the box and that is Karl urban in JJ Trek.
Now on to Vic Mignona as Kirk. I would say ease off on the Shat. If thats what he wants all the power to him but like it has been said, its about the characters and not the actors so please make Kirk your own.

42. GarySeven - August 6, 2012

That was really fun. For someone who has watched the same episodes for decades, it’s fun to see a aparticular episode, and the series, continued.
I thought McCoy was spot on. I love the way he is leaning, like a Doctor/Civilian type instead of regular Starfleet, at the end. Not sure if McCoy did that so much, but it captured the spirit of the character.

Whoa…I forgot the mission here. To nitpick where no nitpicker has nitpicked before.
I’ll PASS! There was a smudge of dirt for half a second on the print. This is HORRIBLE. WHAT A WASTE OF MY VALUABLE TIME!
I could be nitpicking somewhere else….
Seriously, Chris, you were great, and to all of you doing this, thank you.

43. Dr. Image - August 6, 2012

WOW! Looking forward to MORE!!
Chris- Hats off.! An amazing portrayal and tribute. You are thr rightful heir.

44. dmduncan - August 6, 2012

Not too shabby. And awesome to see Chris Doohan in his dad’s role.

And now for my suggestion: Whenever Grant Imahara is about to fire phasers to blow something up, I’d like to see him turn to the camera and explain exactly what he expects is going to happen to the target.

45. CmdrR - August 6, 2012

I’ve said it before… but, Gene Rodenberry would have given his left nut to be able to do in the studio what fans can now do on a laptop.

This is great fun.

Now, let’s see what this baby can really do…

46. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 6, 2012

This is probably one of the most disappoint fan films I have seen to date. They need to work on characterizations much much more.

For all of those complaining that it’s not filmed in 16×9, well TOS was filmed in 4×3 so they are staying true to that.

@8 Phase II is filmed and edited in HD, they don’t release their eps in HD because they found out people were downloading the eps and burning DVD’s to sell at conventions.

@24 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

With all that said and done it just comes across as a rip off of Phase II

47. Yancy - August 6, 2012

Simply brilliant. Totally raises the bar of fan productions.

48. Yancy - August 6, 2012

And no it doesn’t need to be 16×9. The point of this show as I understand it is literally to pick up where TOS left off.

49. MJ - August 6, 2012

@48. Sorry, but that is just dumb not going with 16 x 9. Like that is going to ruin the experience or something???

50. MJ - August 6, 2012

@46 “For all of those complaining that it’s not filmed in 16×9, well TOS was filmed in 4×3 so they are staying true to that.”

Why??? TOS was filmed on 16MM film. Last time I checked, they are not staying true to that? TOS used models and blu-screen — they are not staying true to that either.

It is just idiotic to not give us widescreen on this. I find lack of widescreen to be distracting now here in 2012.

51. Driver - August 6, 2012

When CGI humans become identical to real humans, then Shatner et al could be brought back to continue the 5 year mission albeit with sound alikes. Everything else is just so much personal vanity for these so called actors.

52. Sneering Supercomputer - August 6, 2012

This looked great.. I had my doubts at first when this project was announced but that was awesome! Chris Doohan is the spitting image of his old man and gives a convincing performance as Scotty! Great sets too. I can;t wait to see a whole episode.

53. Jonboc - August 6, 2012

First impressions…I grok it! Professionally, it feels right. It’s polished with no hiccups in editing or sound or lighting. Kirk and Bones? I really need to see more, but Kirk, playing it on the subtle side, is very effective. Bones is natural enough, as is Scotty…nice job by Mr. Doohan…coming off very natural and not at all forced. Like they say, you’re acting great when it doesn’t look like you’re acting. If you come off as reciting lines….bad….if you come off as saying lines as you would off the stage….good. These guys are good. My only apprehension lies with Spock. he isn’t bad, he’s just wrong for that role. He seems way too young and the timbre of his voice lacks the cool calm, yet mature authority of Leonard Nimoy. I would suggest they go back to the casting call for Spock. The character is crucial to the series success, and there is no room for the chemistry not to work. in this clip, the banter between Kirk, Spock and McCoy was not working, more due to Spock’s line delivery, high register of voice and reactions than anything the other two actors were doing. I hope they re-assess their casting before they commit to a full episode, everything else was on the money.

54. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

#48.

“And no it doesn’t need to be 16×9. The point of this show as I understand it is literally pick up where TOS left off.”

So what? If the TOS producers in the ’60’s had widescreen cameras, they would have filmed the show in 16×9. “Phase II” films in widescreen, and that takes place not too long after where TOS ended.

The 4:3 format gives us less. I don’t know why anyone would want to film something that way. Especially when it results in visual effects shots being reduced.

55. Sneering Supercomputer - August 6, 2012

but not to be outdone, also dont forget to look at the new vignette from Phase II that just came out today… equally fantastic!

56. falcon - August 6, 2012

That was actually not bad. The lighting and camera angles for the recreation of “Turnabout Intruder” were spot on. The bridge could use some work, but then again, you’re talking about soaking about a half-million dollars into a set like that (if you’re lucky), and James Cawley and crew raised the bar when they installed LCD screens in the stations, instead of just blinky lights. The characterization of Kirk was pretty good – nobody can out-Shat the Shat, but Vic seems to do a pretty good job in the vignette. The guy playing Spock looks more like a pixie – albeit a tall, skinny one. But then again, where else are you going to find a skinny Jewish guy like Leonard Nimoy? McCoy’s hair needs to be fixed – and he’s a little taller than De Kelley.

Scotty? Are you sure James Doohan wasn’t reincarnated in his son? Chris’ portrayal of Scotty gave me goose bumps.

Seeing Gabe Koerner’s name (as well as Jack Marshall and several other Phase II veterans) gives me hope that the look and feel will be TOS, yet updated. Like the design of the Enterprise herself, this should be a timeless, iconic look. I’m looking forward to more.

And to second what @1 said earlier, Disqus would make this a lot easier.

57. Yancy - August 6, 2012

MJ, TOS was not shot on 35mm, not 16mm… I can’t even think of a TV series from the 60s that didn’t shoot on 35mm. 16mm was reserved for documentaries and avant-garde films from the era.

58. Yancy - August 6, 2012

Seriously who cares if Phase II films 16×9… good for them. If “Star Trek Continues” wants to shoot 4×3, more power to them.

59. MJ - August 6, 2012

@75. Your right of course — duh! My point stands though — the are not “filming” this — they are using video, so that is not an exact match, nor is the manner is which they are doing the special effects. Therefore, to suggest they have to do the ridiculous 3×2 format is ridiculous.

60. MJ - August 6, 2012

@58. I care.

61. Bob Boberson - August 6, 2012

Production values are high, but Mignogna looked horrible – truly a bad makeup job on him, and his performance as Kirk didn’t do much for me either… as someone else posted, if I didn’t know the actor playing McCoy was actually supposed to be McCoy, I wouldn’t have gotten that from this – and I really don’t care for their “Spock” at all – just doesn’t read as the character, IMHO…

62. starshipconstellation - August 6, 2012

I enjoyed it quite a bit except for McCoy. In some ways, McCoy must be the hardest role of all. It took me awhile but I’ve accepted Phase II’s John Kelley’s take on the character as he seems to have grown a lot in the role. Kevin Huber’s bit on the bridge with Spock seemed smarmy, yet the scene in the corridor he had the right gentle touch as they lead Dr. Lester away so perhaps he’ll also grow into the role as well. McCoy is very complex, I wouldn’t expect the actor who plays him to nail him right out the gate unless you happen to be Karl Urban.

As for Vig Mignogna, I don’t have a problem with his being so Shatner like. I found that his body language and movements surprisingly like Shatner’s for the scene by scene recreation of the last moments of Turnabout Intruder. For that, I say good job. We’ll just have to see where he takes the character from there.

Chris Doohan was just spooky channeling his father. I hope to see more of him too.

There are some very minor details of the upper bridge screens that seem a little off but the look of everything is very good. I give Phase II the nod for the better bridge. I’ll always be a Phase II fan, but I’m also interested to see what Star Trek Continues will do. It’s a big galaxy out there…

63. falcon - August 6, 2012

And Vic needs to smoke more. Bill Shatner had a deeper voice than Vic.

64. RuthlessNate - August 6, 2012

Did they dub over the dialogue in a recording studio after filming? It didn’t sound like the dialogue was on live audio. It was kind of awkward sounding to me. I know Phase II has been plagued with poor dialogue audio in the episodes I’ve seen. I believe these were filmed on the same sets. Perhaps this is their way of getting around it?
I’ll probably watch their first episode, but I do hope they can make the dialogue sound more natural.

65. Red Shirt Diaries - August 6, 2012

Sticking with the 3×2 format is not necessary. This would look so cool in 16×9. They will regret this decision a few years from now.

66. DAK23 - August 6, 2012

The resemblance is eerie in some spots. Mr. Doohan, of course, but the actor playing Kirk really has Shatner’s eyes it seems.He looks like a cross between Shatner and Wilem Dafoe.

67. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

#58.

I definitely care. Maybe you don’t, but I suspect you’re in the minority here.

68. Yancy - August 6, 2012

#67 Like I care about being in a minority… I assume you must no longer watch TOS because God forbid it’s 4×3. OMG!!!!!

69. MJ - August 6, 2012

@68. What point are you trying to make? We HAVE to watch TOS in 3×2, but the creators of this new Trek could easily do 19×9 — in fact, I would bet it takes extra work for them to convert it to 3×2. That is just a waste.

70. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

#68.

I watch TOS. It was filmed in the 4:3 format because it was the only format they had for television at the time. Therefore, it doesn’t bother me that it isn’t in widescreen.

MJ and I have been pointing out that the STC producers have the option of filming in widescreen, but they chose to limit themselves with the 4:3 format. That limits their ability to do epic visual effects. There is no good reason to stay with that aspect ratio.

“The X-Files” for instance, filmed the first four seasons in 4:3. Starting with season five, they filmed in widescreen. Why? Because it allowed for more room to fit the actors, plus it improved the shots. They weren’t concerned about maintaining aspect ratio consistency. They saw the chance to visually upgrade the show and took it.

SHEESH!

71. MJ - August 6, 2012

@70. Good points, RDR.

Correction to my earlier posts — I meant “4×3″, not “3×2″.

72. Yancy - August 6, 2012

Again it’s an aesthetic taste that ultimately isn’t your decision… and frankly we have no idea what format the final product will be released in. This was a coda to an existing bit of Trek lore that was shot 4×3, so why would you not remain true to the original source material.

SHEESH indeed!

And if you don’t think film shot 4×3 (1.33:1) can’t look epic I suggest you look at some of John Ford’s early work or the final 30 minutes of High Noon.

73. BB43MAN - August 6, 2012

Well done! This was the most believable fan-made film of TOS that I’ve seen! Sure, it’s only a small clip but, if the other episodes are of this level, I’m hooked! Well done to the entire cast and Chris Doohan………WOW! THIS is the scotty that JJ should have gotten. Vic looks great as does the rest! Keep these coming, Vic & Company!

74. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

#71.

Thanks! :-)

4:3 aspect is a downgrade in today’s era. It just seems silly and myopic to film that way just for “consistency”.

No one has complained about how “Phase II” is filmed in widescreen.

This is like making a correction where no correction needs to be made.

75. Captain Karl - August 6, 2012

hrmmm…it seems instead of trying to find their own voice, some of the actors instead chose to imitate the originating actor. I half expected Grant Imahara to say “oh my” as only Mr. Takei can say it.

76. MJ - August 6, 2012

@72 “And if you don’t think film shot 4×3 (1.33:1) can’t look epic I suggest you look at some of John Ford’s early work or the final 30 minutes of High Noon.”

Not sure what your point is here? If someone had came to Ford on that movie with 70MM Cinescope technology, you can bet Ford would have used it.

77. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - August 6, 2012

Uhura is cute!

78. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 6, 2012

@50 “Why??? TOS was filmed on 16MM film. Last time I checked, they are not staying true to that? TOS used models and blu-screen — they are not staying true to that either.”

Well let’s see 16MM film is damned expensive and almost impossible to find now since everything has gone digital. Physical Models and blue screen for visuals would make it unaffordable to do a fan film.

Now as for your:

“It is just idiotic to not give us widescreen on this. I find lack of widescreen to be distracting now here in 2012.”

What that really means is that if they are going to make a fan film they have to make it the way YOU want it simply because your spoiled. They are using their artistic license on this. Your trying to dictate terms on something your getting for free. When you download it, you can adjust the aspect ratio if you have the proper software

79. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

#72.

Dude, you conveniently ignore the fact that “Phase II” is a continuation of TOS as well, yet James Cawley didn’t bother worrying about the fact that widescreen may or may not stay true to TOS. What matters are how the characters are interpreted/acted, and how the sets, costumes and visual effects are designed. So if you’re doing a fan production that continues the adventures of the TOS characters as seen in TOS, those aspects DO have to remain the same. The aspect ratio doesn’t. In fact, as I have said before, the widescreen aspect allows for greater freedom. TOS didn’t have that opportunity.

Filming in 4:3 in today’s age just seems like an unnecessary excercise in appeasing the nitpicking, myopic nerds like yourself.

GEEZ LOUISE!!

80. Anthony Pascale - August 6, 2012

STC have made the decision to try to shoot the show as much like TOS as possible. That means they will not be using modern techniques like hand held cameras, the effects shots will be CG but try to mimic limitations of 1960s models, and they will be doing 4:3. It is all a creative chioce on their part.

Star Trek Phase II have decided to evolve their show and introduce some modern techniques into the series. Again a creative choice.

There is no right answer, just different ways of doing it.

81. RobertZ - August 6, 2012

Thank You! to all who made this.
I got a nice Star Trektingly sensation from this. And I’v had a bad day…so Thank You STAR TREK Continues and TREKMOVIE.

82. Red Dead Ryan - August 6, 2012

#78.

Why would anyone want to crop a 4:3 video just to get it in widescreen? And why should we have to download special software to do that? Why not just film the thing in widescreen and give people the option to watch it in 4:3? Why not give people the option?

83. Anthony Pascale - August 6, 2012

Oh and Red Dead Ryan

Final warning for flaming…next time = permaban

84. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 6, 2012

@64 “I know Phase II has been plagued with poor dialogue audio in the episodes I’ve seen. I believe these were filmed on the same sets.”

No they weren’t filmed on the same sets basically because the Phase II and Continues production teams can’t stand one another. This is brought to us by the same people that produce Starship Farragut.

Phase II had some audio issues early on but have since been corrected in the newer episodes.

85. Captain Otter - August 6, 2012

Not to knock the other fan productions (to each their own) but this is the first fan made Trek I’ve really enjoyed. The acting is decent, the sets are great- if they get good scripts, I could see myself being a fan.

86. Yancy - August 6, 2012

76. My point is not difficult to comprehend, a 1.33:1 image can look just as “epic” as something shot in 1.85:1. It depends on the skill of the director and cinematographer and their combined abilities to stage the scene within the frame. John Ford’s early Westerns are truly “epic” despite the 1.33:1 limitation, and epics such as “Gone With the Wind” and “The Adventures of Robin Hood” don’t feel any smaller than their widescreen counterparts. What matters is the talent behind the camera.

And this is one area where I think STC excels compared to other fan productions. STC’s vignette was composed like TOS with big, bold close ups of the actors… My only gripe was McCoy walking onto the bridge… in a 60s show they would have cut to a wide shot and shown McCoy walk on the bridge rather than imply he had with a sound effect.

Sure today’s Phase II vignette was “epic” I guess. The opening was great and the montage sequences were directed particularly well, but I also saw was a director struggling with staging actors within the frame. One scene in particular was very glaring.

After Kirk gives his speech and begins talking with the two Admirals the staging becomes…. well bad… amateur hour bad. Garth stands there, almost in profile, while the other Admiral and his aide are doing business in the background. We cut to a medium shot of Kirk,,,, fine. Then medium shot of Garth… but he’s still almost in profile again and the actor is supposed to be emoting… You NEVER hide the actor’s eyes and facial expressions like that. That’s stuff you see in bad independent films or student films… not in professional work.

87. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 6, 2012

@82 it all depends on the budget of the fan film.

Since he was complaining I provided #50 a viable option.

88. MJ - August 6, 2012

@78 “What that really means is that if they are going to make a fan film they have to make it the way YOU want it simply because your spoiled.”

Yea, sure, whatever dude. Actually I am simply hoping that the creators of this are reading these posts and change their mind about doing the 4:3.

89. Yancy - August 6, 2012

@82 What special software is needed? I’ve shot HD material natively at both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 over the years and never had problems encoding either aspect ratio in Sony Vegas. I’ve never had issues with the end user either… In Youtube or other video services it just shows up as cropped in a 16×9 box. If it’s an external file it simply has to be flagged as 4×3 so WMP, VLC, QT, or your player of choice will show it in the correct aspect ratio.

Yancy

90. MJ - August 6, 2012

@76 “My point is not difficult to comprehend, a 1.33:1 image can look just as “epic” as something shot in 1.85:1″

I disagree. I can imagine any epic 1:33:1 movie or tv show looking even more epic in a wider-screen format. It is degrees of “epicness” here, and wider adds more to an already epic movie or show.

91. MJ - August 6, 2012

@89. This is why they should allow you to view it in 1:33:1. That way you and your grandpa can catch it in boxed format and pretend you are back in the 1960’s, while I can enjoy the full widescreen presentation on my 50″ plasma. Everyone is happy!!!

92. Yancy - August 6, 2012

@80 Cool Anthony, thanks for the info. Looking forward to the next vignette on October 1st,

93. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 6, 2012

Now that is how you do a fan series, great acting to complement the equally great visuals.
MJ is right this definatly raises the bar in how fan series should be looked upon. Kudos to all involved.

94. MJ - August 6, 2012

@91. I meant give the user the option to view in in either 1:33:1 or 16×9…so everybody is happy!

95. MJ - August 6, 2012

@80. Anthony, I hear you. But I bet in five years time they will regret the 4:3 decision.

Anyway, this production looks awesome and I am looking forward to the first episode!

96. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 6, 2012

As for the aspect ratio question, I have no problem whatsoever with this being Academy Aspect ratio, Even projected on to my 120″ theatre screen.

97. Michael Hall - August 6, 2012

Apparently Phil @ 24 has taken on the fascinating challenge of building his very own warp-powered strawman. As with the two Trek productions, I wish him every success in that endeavor.

98. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 6, 2012

@88 I understand, yet they have their reasons. As I said earlier I am not very impressed with what I have seen so far from them. Things might get better but I doubt it.

@89 Thanks for the info.

99. Phil - August 6, 2012

@97. What the hell are you talking about?

100. Ensign RedShirt - August 6, 2012

Another reason they probably chose 4×3 is because they are attempting to replicate the visual vocabulary of TOS, right down to the way the actors are framed.

It’s an artistic choice. I have no problem with it whatsoever. A project’s aspect ratio has nothing to do with it’s inherent quality.

This project looks far more professional than any other fan project out there. I look forward to what they do next.

101. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 6, 2012

@40 STC is sharing sets with the Starship Farragut crew, if I’m not mistaken. And filming an episode actually puts a good bit of wear on the sets, not just from the actors, but the amount of equipment that has to be moved around. The savings might not be as big as you think.

On the aspect ratio discussion, I think 16:9 is more natural for human vision and prefer it. I’d much rather see authenticity in the look, the sets, the acting, and especially the story quality. Filming in 4:3 just seems a bit slavish to me, Maybe some things that have been surpassed should be left in the past. I certainly have no intention of watching these films on a snowy black & white television, no matter how nostalgic it might be.

102. LLAP - August 6, 2012

From a visual standpoint, that is stunning. A lot of Hollywood directors talk about making movies in a style that hearkens back several decades by using old-style lighting, lenses, and film, but it rarely pulls off the exact effect. These guys NAILED the look of the original series, sets, lighting, and everything. If I could nit-pick anything, it’s that they look too “crisp”, as in the film is clearly better than what they had in the late ’60s. But even that isn’t enough to give the look anything but an A+.

And Grant Imahara got George Takei’s inflections exactly right, if his voice was a little lower you wouldn’t know the difference. Not bad for a professional Mythbuster!

103. Sebastian S. - August 6, 2012

Wow!!

Great job, everyone! Superior acting in this (esp. for a fan film). The FX are breathtaking; and the sets, costumes, etc are all top of the line. I like the cast; Chris Doohan really channels his father (I mean that as the sincerest compliment). And even Grant Imahara nails the “Sulu-voice.”

I will DEFINITELY be watching! Thanks for sharing this…. ;-)

104. Andy Patterson - August 6, 2012

All very good. Fun. Doohan is really good. Puts a good spin on it. I see his dad in him. That makes me oddly happy. Think his dad would be too.

105. StunKill - August 6, 2012

#11 ADMIRAL KIRK, you are just a rude insignificant. these guys are doing this because they love star trek and arent even getting paid, just enjoy the presentation. I love what they are doing. It embodies the spririt of star trek in every way. I would love to be involved in something like this.

106. freezejeans - August 6, 2012

As a kid who grew up in the early 70s on the original, I must proclaim…

NAILED IT.

107. Pensive's Wetness - August 6, 2012

i liked it… dunno if they should be TOS (rather would be happy if they were another ship honestly) but they did well enough in that video to maybe challenge Elvis himself, really… 8 out of 10, for my score.

108. VulcanFilmCritic - August 6, 2012

Wonderful job. The production values are excellent. Certainly exceeding that of the original pilot and approaching that of TOS.
The acting is much improved. This is a cast that I find credible. I can concentrate on the story and not be distracted by the lack of acting chops. Bravo guys, especially Mr. Doohan.
Special effects. What can I say? Great. Not as great as what the pros are capable of but seamless with TOS on video.
I can’t wait to see the series!

It’s interesting that it debuted at Shore Leave. This is a lovely fan-based convention held in Hunt Valley, MD outside of Baltimore. I’ve attended in the past but not this year. Fan-authors and pro-authors mingle and exchange ideas and there are lots of astronauts, people from NASA and mostly second-string stars. A very relaxed convention that reminds me of the old days when the fans held conventions at the Americana and the Commodore hotels in NY back in the 1970’s. It’s a nice alternative to the corporate product turned out by the folks at Creation Entertainment.
Now if the organizers could just get Mr. Orci, et al to attend…

109. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - August 6, 2012

Oh. My. Goodness.

I got goosebumps watching this! It’s so refreshing to finally see a fan series that GETS it – and gets TOS, most of all!! They adjusted their film quality to actually look like TOS, the lighting is essentially professional-quality, and they even adjusted their audio recording to make it sound more TOS-ish and less “hollow” and echo-y, which makes it blend with the old quality of the music more (the music stands out so starkly to the rest of “Phase II”‘s production that it’s laughable). They don’t try to make it “OMG SO SERIOUS U GUYZ” the way Phase II does, and they don’t shoe-horn in melodrama. They’re also capable of writing original dialogue, dialogue that isn’t just pretentious recitations of classic poems or something – they talk like real people, just like on TOS!

Plus, the casting isn’t perfect, but boy did the actor doing Kirk get him RIGHT!! He has the same build and physical presence of Shatner as Kirk; the way he carries himself, holds his arms, walks, etc – especially in how he delivers his lines!!

And they actually hired ACTORS (and not just friends and neighbors and random people off the street) to play the characters! Scenes flow as they should, and they actually have mood!

This is an EXCELLENT production, and I’m very much looking forward to more!!

110. cd - August 6, 2012

Vic Mignona as Kirk, not bad. I’d like to see him do Janice Lester in Kirk’s body! Chris Doohan as Scotty: spot on. And Grant Imahara as Sulu: Oh My! Excellent George Takei voice! Not impressed, however, with Spock and McCoy. Some work needs to be done there. Excellent visual effects, I always like to see that subtle aztec pattern on the TOS Enterprise.

111. DJT - August 7, 2012

Go Chris! For the record though, I love Athena. Yep. Woo hoo!

112. northstar - August 7, 2012

Nice work – I like the lighting and the sets, although the bridge seemed a bit dead. Casting was ok, except Kirk and McCoy. That guy playing McCoy grimace all the way through was really bad and cracked me up. Kirk has a slight evil touch – don´t know why, but I am missing a certain lightness in him.

113. John - August 7, 2012

I would like to see some better acting!

114. Pringle - August 7, 2012

I think I’d like to dump a load onto Athena Stamos’ boots.

115. Toonloon - August 7, 2012

Oh My God!!!!

I am genuinely floored by this! It looks just like it was shot in the 60’s. The style and photography is perfect! And the main cast have the characters perfectly! I got genuine chills watching each one, especially Mr Doohan because of the connection to his late father.

Special kudos to Kirk too who seems to be channeling Shatner without imitating him. Loved Sulu as well.

God, this was damn good! Hope the rest sticks to the that standard!

:)

116. Toonloon - August 7, 2012

Regarding the aspect ratio… the production team have gone for AUTHENTICITY. That means creating the sets to the same specifications as Matt Jeffries did. Jeffries designed his work to be seen at 4:3. If Jeffries was designer for 16:9 then he would have built the sets differently.

You can’t shoot in those corridors at 16:9 without it looking off. The sets weren’t built for that.

Let the Phase II guys keep their 16:9 ratio. That way, as fans, we’re all catered for. But I strongly hope that these guys stick to 4:3. It really helps convince you that you watching TOS. I was genuinely amazed by the vignette and how much it felt just like an original episode. 16:9 would destroy that illusion. If you’re going to shoot in widescreen then why not just re-invent TOS for the 21st century. Oh wait, didn’t the Lost guy already do that? I rest my case.

117. C.D. - August 7, 2012

I liked the look of it tho I think the colors are off but I didn’t notice until I saw the sidebyside picstures from the original. The doors are orange rather than red it looks like. Anyway, a nice effort.

The McCoy was terrible, however. Since when does McCoy sound like Eddie from Leave It To Beaver?

Everyone else seemed okay but Chekov had no accent and the Spock is really short.

I know the Kirk actor is supposed to be a voice artist but his Shatner-ish delivery is camping it up for me. I’m distracted by it enough I had to go back and re-listen to some of the lines. Which, sorry I did because they were kinda amateur. Not meaning to compare but it’s hard not to because I just saw the P2 vignette and they apparently had a Star Trek author right their dialog and it shows. Get someone who actually knows how to write dialog for a script, guys.

118. Holger - August 7, 2012

Wow. Very good acting. And also excellent lighting on the corridors and on the main bridge. The only flaw I can see here is the fit of Spock’s tunic.

119. Brady - August 7, 2012

Wow, so much to say, been a long time P2 fan and even miss James now. This new production has some great things. Doohan was of course excellent. Even liked Vic and his attempt at Kirk. Great studio work also. Problems? Vic needs swoop the Kirk hair over a bit more, though he seriously could pull of Dr.Smith better (oh the pain) ADD kicking in but doesn’t the 5 hr energy drink cowboy guy look like Smith also…he was in a STNG episode when he was younger…Ok I’m back. Spock is channeling Nolan Batman voice way to much. ” I’m Spock”. Also what happpened over at Cawley Studios? Did Vic come over shoot an Episode, deceide he was better than James, and Steal his concept, ideas and some actors? If someone was invited to my sandbox and took my toys I’dbloody their nose. I do however like what their doing. If they don’t stunt cast and do original episodes not Fanboygasm eps I will check this out.

120. Admiral Kent - August 7, 2012

Seeing Chris Doohan as Scotty gave me chills…excellent!

121. cj - August 7, 2012

This is WONDERFUL!

122. ME!! - August 7, 2012

Seriously cool. NICE quality and production values on Continues.

VERY impressed with the acting on Continues….something Phase II has struggled with up to now, though they have gotten better.

Definitely can’t wait for more Continues!

123. ME!! - August 7, 2012

The one thing I think I’d like to see changed on Continues is the glossy sheen on the hull. Don’t care for that.

Go Chris!!

124. Do You Wanna Dance - August 7, 2012

Oh my. Beyond impressed.

125. Chris Doohan - August 7, 2012

This project is definitely a labor of love. I appreciate all the wonderful comments so far, thanks!

PS I just read the first episode and it’s AMAZING!! Can’t wait for you guys to see it.

126. Adam Bomb 1701 - August 7, 2012

I’ll go so far as to say that I enjoyed that short vignette more than I enjoyed the two-hour-plus “Star Trek” from 2009. Maybe JJ Abrams should watch the fan-films; he might learn something.
One problem I had with “Turnabout Intruder” that’s not addressed anywhere is that Doctors Lester and Coleman should have gone right to the brig, and then to prison. Lester killed the staff at Camus II, and Coleman was probably a conspirator in that. Not to mention that they conspired in a mutiny and an attempt to kill Kirk. Yet, Kirk let them walk. They should have gone to prison for the rest of their lives. Of course, I’m thinking like a realist here. Or, maybe I watch too much “Law & Order”.

127. drew - August 7, 2012

so what exactly happened between Phase II and Continues cast/crew members? why such strong animosity – behind the scenes? I’ve heard something about lack of professionalism but i’m sure there’s more to it.

128. New Horizon - August 7, 2012

@ 125. Chris Doohan – August 7, 2012

Chris, I was very touched by your performance as Scotty and the entire vignette to be honest.

I was wondering if I could ask you a question in private? If so, drop me a line at harlandmct at gmail dot com.

129. Gary Graham's mailman - August 7, 2012

Simply Amazing! I love the bridge from the end of the last TOS episode. I hope this series delves more into the “behind the scenes” of the characters like this vignette did. The 60’s show had to provide thrills and suspense to capture an audience, but this “fan” series can do more with the characters since the only people watching are truly fans who care about that stuff. Well done to all involved. Acting, costumes, props, sets, lighting, sound, music….wonderfully retro!! I’m so excited to see full episodes!

130. Andrew - August 7, 2012

I thought this was good! I hate to say that this Kirk, in my opinion, was better than James Crowley’s interpretation. Just my opinion though. James does a great job, but this actor seems more subtle. I hope to see more from this group!

131. falcon - August 7, 2012

@119 – Why can’t there be two competing Treks? Cawley and Mignogna have every right to follow their hearts.

132. RobertMfromLI - August 7, 2012

@Northstar: the bridge is a massively difficult set to light, and requires as much as 20,000 watts of light to do it justice (heh, sometimes more) – it takes a LOT of lights, and a big grip team who can work together in such a confined space to fire up that many lights – give them time…

133. Masshuu il Malacandra - August 7, 2012

Georgia? Why in Georgia? Have any idea how hot and HUMID it gets down there? And don’t forget the hurricanes!
I would have opted for Riverside, Iowa if you wanted to make a real impression.

134. MJ - August 7, 2012

@119 “Also what happpened over at Cawley Studios? Did Vic come over shoot an Episode, deceide he was better than James, and Steal his concept, ideas and some actors? If someone was invited to my sandbox and took my toys I’dbloody their nose. I do however like what their doing. If they don’t stunt cast and do original episodes not Fanboygasm eps I will check this out.”

@127 “so what exactly happened between Phase II and Continues cast/crew members? why such strong animosity – behind the scenes? I’ve heard something about lack of professionalism but i’m sure there’s more to it.”

Well, to be blunt, if the crews have grudges to bear against the other…well that will only improve the competition between them and give us fans a better product. These latest two vignettes show how the production values and acting are taking a major step forward.

Competition breeds superior products. We fans win because they two series teams desperately want to outdo each other.

Works for me!!!

135. Chasco - August 7, 2012

Loved that they picked up right where the original series left off, and that they did it so well! McCoy at the moment is the ‘weakest link’ here, but I’m sure with the bigger canvas of a full ep he’ll get into his stride.
Chris Doohan was fantastic – what a masterstroke to cast him.

Love the interview with the 3 cast members too, especially Chris’ tribbles story :-)

136. Dennis_C - August 7, 2012

I’d love to see a series that bridges that gap between TMP and Star Trek II. Far more ambitious and costly, no doubt, since the costumes and sets are far more complex to recreate.

137. Ben - August 7, 2012

Is it just me or does the guy playing Kirk have a resemblance to Denis Leary?

138. Tom - August 7, 2012

@136 – Star Trek Phase 3! LOL between TMP and TWOK

139. MJ - August 7, 2012

Just had a great idea. Wouldn’t it be an awsome reality tv show to show the two production crews competing to make Trek episodes. Think of “American Chopper: Senior Versus Junior,” but focusing on these two crews. “Star Trek Fan Production Wars,” or something like that. Both crews could then earn $$ from this to put back into their productions, improving the quality even further. And this would be huge PR for both series.

140. Vultan - August 7, 2012

#139

Great idea!

https://producers.discovery.com/producersPortal/login.jsf

Make it so, MJ.

141. Mark Anton - August 7, 2012

This series looks like it could turn out to be great– except for one thing, which I really wish Star Trek Continues would reconsider: the screen ratio.
The disagree with the argument that the series creators make that it should be done in the 4:3 screen ratio because that’s the way it was done in the original series. I couldn’t help but notice that STC does uses stereo audio (and it sounds great!). Stereo television didn’t happen until the 1980s, at least 10 years after the original series ended its first run. Obviously, a real purist would have gone with a mono soundtrack; after all, that’s what TOS used. However, it’s obvious that computer users would be ill served by inferior mono. So why go with the inferior screen ratio? To me, on my laptop, the image looks cramped. The now-standard 16:9 ratio would, I feel, be more appropriate to the audience you’re trying to reach. I really think that this new series has the potential to be really cool. But honestly, the more modern-sounding stereo soundtrack would be much better served with the more modern-looking screen ratio.
Best of luck with the new series. I’m excited about it.

142. Jeffrey S. Nelson - August 7, 2012

Vic is more impressive than the new guy at New Voyages as Kirk…

143. Al - August 7, 2012

The color timing is wrong

144. Pat Payne - August 7, 2012

Vic Mignonga — IS James T Kirk, when Chris Pine isn’t available.
Todd Haberkorn — Not bad as Spock. Vocally I’m seeing it, just not quite visually.
Chuck Huber: NOT McCoy. No. Absolutely not. I’m not seeing it. Even the stocky guy wearing the Tribble wig playing him in Phase II is more a McCoy than he is. And this isn’t really a case of “He’s not DeForrest Kelley or Karl Urban” syndrome. I just don’t think he’s a fit. He seems to be playing more of a sitcom-comic relief carachature of the character. Either he has to go back and see just why DeForrest Kelley worked so well as McCoy and emulate rather than impersonate that, or he needs to work harder at making McCoy his own.
Maybe it’s just that Dr. McCoy is my favorite character out of the original series that I’m touchy…
Chris Doohan — IS Scotty, when Simon Pegg isn’t… you know, even though I love Pegg’s Scotty, Doohan ought to be Scotty even when Pegg IS available. If he pitches his voice just a little higher, he’d be the spit-and-image of his father.
Grant Imahara — Is an amazing Sulu.
Chekov — unless I missed it, would it kill him to do the accent? Otherwise, again a great choice.

The visuals are sweet, and the sets are awesome.

@139, I doubt they’d be allowed to do that under any sort of agreements or forebearance Paramount might have allowing them to do the shows.

145. ALPTrekker - August 7, 2012

@125 Chris, if I close my eyes and just listen to your dialogue, I could SWEAR it was your Dad! The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree…

146. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

First in regards to High Noon, John Ford didnt direct that, Fred Zinnemann did. As for the comment that John Ford would have directed in a widescreen format if he had the option. I just want to point out.
Wide screen 70mm formats have been around since the 1920s and Early 30s. formats like Fantom Screen, Grandure 70mm, Poly Vision, Natural Vision, Vita Scope, Magna Film, RealLife and various others.

By this point John Fords carrer was at a point where, he had the clout that if he wanted to he could have shot a movie in a widescreen 70mm format over 1.33:1 so to say if John Ford had been given the option to shoot any of his academy aspect ratio features in widescreen instead of acdamedy 1.33:1 isnt really accurate, cause had he wanted to he could have back in the late 20s and early 30s

I dont know i guess it just bothers me when i see people second guessing a creative teams artistic choices when it comes to the look and style they are going for when telling a story. with a great director and crew it doesnt matter what aspect ratio a movie or show is shot in.

And for the most part people who have been saying that its a mistake when someone today choses to release something in 1.33:1 as opposed to widescreen are the same ones who were the reason why we were stuck with FULL screen Pan&Scan transfers for so many years, because widescreen didnt fill their entire tv set.

Perhaps one of you who are saying the STC should be in 1.78:1 would care to mention your thoughts about about scope 2.35:1 aspect ratios on your 50″ or 60″ inch plasmas curious if you just dont like 1.33:1 or if it also holds true for 2.35:1 as well In anycase as i said above I dont care what aspect ratio a director chooses to shoot their film/show in. even on my 122″ Theatre screen looks great no matter which aspect ratio its in.

147. Horatio - August 7, 2012

Chris Doohan – OMG you sound just like your Dad!

148. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@146 Yes, I know John Ford did not direct High Noon (maybe you were directing the comment at someone else), I was just using it as an example of a film which could have been shot in a wide format (given that most Westerns were at the time). Ford on the other hand could easily have shot “The Quiet Man” in 1.78:1, but instead chose the Academy Apect Ratio. It’s completely an aesthetic choice.

149. TrekMadeMeWonder - August 7, 2012

54. Red Dead Ryan – August 6, 2012

Why shoot in 4:3? Because its easier to crunch 3D pixels with the smaller 4:3 screen size.

I wonder if that was really the deciding factor.

150. MJ - August 7, 2012

@148. So not only did you get the director of High Noon wrong, you claim to have first-hand knowledge of their thinking and decision-making in terms of the format as well.

Wow, that would be cool to be you. You are like a modern-day Charles Xavier, and can even read minds across time. Impressive!

LOL

151. MJ - August 7, 2012

@146. As you pointed out, Ford wasn’t even the director of High Noon as Yancy had previously said. So I am not sure what the point of his argument is anymore?

152. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@150. I never stated John Ford directed High Noon… don’t know where you got that from?

I stated earlier: “And if you don’t think film shot 4×3 (1.33:1) can’t look epic I suggest you look at some of John Ford’s early work, or the final 30 minutes of High Noon.”

That never suggests Ford directed High Noon…

153. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

148 I was backing up what you said, he had many chances over his career to have shot widescreen over academy even back in the late 20s and 30s.
He had the clout in the late 20s early 30s when 70mm was being explored, that he could have easily chose to shoot in one of the many early widescreen formats that were created back then.

I also know your post wasnt implying that Ford direct High Noon.

154. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

I understand why MJ and others want content to mostly be in 16×9 today, and I respect your reasons why.
But to me the director and creative teams artistic style and choices are paramount over what anyone else want.

Its kind of like saying that the Artist should have been shot in Flat or scope instead of Academy 1.33:1 because most theatres today dont have masking that draws into the acdemy aspect ratio or that it will be pillar boxed for its home video release.

Thats all well and good but the director stylisticly wanted and chose to shoot it in 1.33:1, and its not the audience or any one elses place to question why a director or story teller choses to shoot the way they want.

155. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

Or saying that Paul Thomas Anderson shouldnt have shot The Master in 65mm when there are so few movie theatres that have 70mm projectors that are up and running.

Actually that whole story is intresting right now, Anderson is working his butt off trying to locate theatres that have a working 70mm projector in place, and dumb@ss Harvey Weinstien doesnt care. the musicbox theatre in chicago is the only 70mm theatre in chicago and when Anderson was made aware of the location he got very excited and was working to get The Master booked there, meanwhile dumb@ss Harvey, books it into another theatre instead in the area. saying basicly he didnt care if its not going to be shown in 70mm or not, he wants it on the most screens possible.

*now I am waiting for the people to start bringing up IMAX lol

156. MJ - August 7, 2012

@152 ““And if you don’t think film shot 4×3 (1.33:1) can’t look epic I suggest you look at some of John Ford’s early work, or the final 30 minutes of High Noon.”

Well this disproves your point even further. “Fords early work”, which was before he got famous and could call his own shots was at 1:33:1. So notice then that once he reached the prime point of his career then, he want to widescreen.

Good point Yancy — I agree!!!

157. JimJ - August 7, 2012

Not too bad at all. looking forward to this and other fan productions. They have ALL come a long ways from the early stuff that was put out there.

158. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@156 No just proves how much you don’t know about film history. John Ford’s 1952 classic, “The Quiet Man” was filmed during the apex of his career, and the height of John Wayne’s popularity. The film was set in Ireland and made extensive use of exterior locations. It was begging to be filmed in a “widescreen” format, instead he shot it in Academy Aspect Ratio.

159. K-7 - August 7, 2012

Agree with MJ on the John Ford comments. Heck, Steven Spielberg started out with Super 8 films, then did TV movies at 1:33:1, and then graduated to widescreen, and eventually 70MM. Of course a young John Ford would progress on a similar path and move immediately to widescreen when he could. Yes, Yancy kind of dug himself a hole here when saying a young John Ford used 1:33:1. That was before he had the option and production cache behind him to go for widescreen. This is a no-brainier.

160. K-7 - August 7, 2012

@158. There are always some exceptions. But in general, look at the later movies in Ford’s career, and most are in widescreen. You really can’t argue that.

161. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@ 158 Really? Read the above post… D’oh!

162. K-7 - August 7, 2012

E.g. his last big western, Cheyenne Autumn, was shot in 2.2:1 aspect ratio.

163. Vultan - August 7, 2012

In regard to aspect ratio and artistic intent, consider the recent best picture winner “The Artist,” which was obviously shown in the old style square look to copy the old silent movies. The same can be said for this production, which seems to be trying its very best to copy the look of ’60s television—right down to the square picture.

Anyway, both of these fan series look pretty darn impressive to me.
Keep up the great work.

164. Yancy - August 7, 2012

Oh and let’s not forget his classic western, Rio Grande from 1950… again an era where widescreen westerns were becoming fairly commonplace… She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), Mogambo (1953), and 1951’s James Cagny vehicle “What Price Glory”

All Academy Aspect Ratio

165. Yancy - August 7, 2012

Heck he was still shooting some films in 1.33:1 as late as 1958 in “The Last Hurrah”

166. MJ - August 7, 2012

Actually, all four of Ford’s last major films were shot in aspect ratios between 1:85:1 and 2.55:1:

– Cheyenne Autumn
– Donovan’s Reef
– How the West Was Won
– The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Yancy can’t argue this — this is a FACT!!!

These movies were shot between 10 and 12 years after the supposed “Yancy’s smoking gun” comment about The Quiet Man — that was way back in 1952.

Yancy picks one movie during more towards the middle of Ford’s career and expects that will make his point, but it is not fooling me or others here. As shown above, by the end of his career, Ford’s big movies were all in widescreen. He wasn’t pissing around with 1:33:1 anymore.

167. MJ - August 7, 2012

@165. That was hardly one of Ford’s big movies. I doubt many of us here have seen it, although I have. That is a political thriller movie — not a western or action movie.

168. MJ - August 7, 2012

@64 “Oh and let’s not forget his classic western, Rio Grande from 1950… again an era where widescreen westerns were becoming fairly commonplace… She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), Mogambo (1953), and 1951′s James Cagny vehicle “What Price Glory” ”

So, it was the late 40’s/early 50’s earlier in his career….whipdee fracking doo! LOL

Keep trying to milk IMDB dude, but you are not fooling anybody. The facts are there — by the end of his career, his major movies were all widescreen. This is an unarguable FACT!

169. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@ 166 And Stanley Kubrick framed his 1999 film “Eyes Wide Shut” for 1.33:1. Your point???

As has been stated numerous times by myself and others, it’s an aesthetic choice of the filmmaker.

170. K-7 - August 7, 2012

Agreed on John Ford — at the end of his career, he was going wide on all of his major westerns and war films. I have no doubt that in hindsight, he would have preferred to do movies like The Quiet Man and Rio Grande in widescreen. I am sure it was budget/production issues that limited those movies to 1:33:1.

171. MJ - August 7, 2012

@169. Different case. Modern art films at times pick older aspect ratios or go black and white even (“The Artist” being the extreme) to give the film an older look.

The equivalent for you failed John Ford case, would have been in Ford had decided to make an art film movie in the early 60’s that was silent and black and white, to try to match the 1920’s silent era of films.

So your point is moot again.

172. MJ - August 7, 2012

@170 “Agreed on John Ford — at the end of his career, he was going wide on all of his major westerns and war films. I have no doubt that in hindsight, he would have preferred to do movies like The Quiet Man and Rio Grande in widescreen. I am sure it was budget/production issues that limited those movies to 1:33:1.”

Well said!!!

173. K-7 - August 7, 2012

Yea, you can’t compare deliberate decisions to go small format/black and white/silent on Art Films today to films in the 1940’s to 1960’s, where in many cases, the format size was largely determined by the production budget and scope/topic of the film.

It is like comparing apples and oranges. It is not a fair comparison

174. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@ 172&173 Well that was easy…

“Yea, you can’t compare deliberate decisions to go small format/black and white/silent on Art Films today to films in the 1940′s to 1960′s”

Yeah it’s called a deliberate artistic decision which the crew of STC made.

Oh BTW, Eyes Wide Shut would hardly constitute an “art” film as it was a major release for Warner Bros summer of 99 and had a production budget of some $60 million dollars… nice try though.

175. K-7 - August 7, 2012

BTW, just ran across an article that said it took 20 years for Ford to get financing arranged to make The Quiet Man. So there is the explanation for the small format — it was on a very tight budget.

176. K-7 - August 7, 2012

“Yeah it’s called a deliberate artistic decision which the crew of STC made.”

But there is still time for them to reconsider based on the posts here by me and others. I bet the master video is in widescreen — so they could still change their mind.

I would like to illustrate to them that they will regret this decision later.

177. MJ - August 7, 2012

Eyes Wide Shut was most certainly an Art Film, albeit more high profile than most Art Films. Think of “The Tree of Life” as an analogous example.

178. MJ - August 7, 2012

@176 “I would like to illustrate to them that they will regret this decision later.”

Agreed! That is why it is important to not be bullied here into a golly-gee acceptance of the 1:33:1 ratio that Yancy and his friends at the senior center want. :-)

179. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@ 177 Ah… so we should just accept the bullying of hipsters like yourself because you know best..

LOL

180. SJU - August 7, 2012

Like watching the original.

181. Sybok'sSecretBrother - August 7, 2012

I LOVE this!

182. MJ - August 7, 2012

@179. Yes, exactly! :-)

183. Moofunk - August 7, 2012

Very well observed! Can’t wait for more. :)

184. Montreal_Paul - August 7, 2012

Cant”t wait to see an entire episode. Looks very promising from what I saw. Chris, you are definitely channeling your Dad! You look and sound just like him! Grant Imahara sounded like George Takei as well. I love these fan productions… hoping to get some time off work to volunteer on this or Phase II one day soon.

185. Azrael - August 7, 2012

Nice work guys.

Chris, are you in the 2013 movie?

Weakest links:
STC, McCoy.
Cawley’s relaunch. Plug n Play Nacelles.

Outie

186. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

178 hey now, I just feel that the creative talent behind the scenes are the ones telling the stories so their Artistic vision is what matters.
If they chose to shoot it in 1.85:1, 2.35:1 or 1.33:1 Its their choice creatively

I just feel audiences dont have the right to dictate how a director or creative talent needs to bring their vision to the screen.

for the person who said that spielberg has shot in 70mm, what movie are you talking about? spielberg has never released a movie that was shot 70mm or are you confusing a 70mm print of one of his classic 70s or 80s films being blown up for 70mm exhibtion?

187. tdrake1701 - August 7, 2012

Was at the con- Missed the “debut” but got to meet Chris- a true pleasure!
Clip looks awesome! can’t wait for more!!

188. MJ - August 7, 2012

@186. Well that is interesting, seeing how I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark on opening day in 1981 in 70 MM. LOL

189. MJ - August 7, 2012

@185. Azrael, I am so confused. Didn’t you provide a tear-jerker fairwell speech here yesterday about not posting anymore here???

190. Red Shirt Diaries - August 7, 2012

All, given they probably use HD video cameras on this production, and probably have to crop down in post production on the computer to get to 1:33:1 resolution, it would seem a rather trivial step for them to provide the show in both the 1:33:1 and 16×9 formats — so the viewers can pick which format to watch.

If anyone from the Production Team is reading this post, can you please respond? I like to hear it from the horse’s mouth versus these self-proclaimed experts (no insult intended) here like Yancy, MJ, K-7 and DanielNameMuchTooLong, etc. ;-0

191. Dennis Bailey - August 7, 2012

4:3 is a perfectly valid choice, as would be the decision to shoot in black and white for a particular project.

One of the marvelous things about these projects is that the producers are freed from commercial considerations – they don’t have to make decisions based on what will “sell,” because they’re not selling anything. They have the opportunity to make their films exactly as they wish, to the best of their abilities. The result is freely offered to the audience; some folks will like what the filmmakers present and others won’t.

The response to this vignette suggests that these guys don’t have to worry about finding an enthusiastic following.

192. navamske - August 7, 2012

In his role as McCoy, DeForest Kelley often (maybe always) wore a ring on the little finger of (I think) his left hand. In this clip, the McCoy guy is wearing a similar ring on the little finger of his left hand.

Either this is an amazing coincidence or it is amazing attention to detail. If it’s the latter, I am very impressed.

193. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - August 7, 2012

I’ve got to say that Vig Mignogna comes off very differently in the interviews than he does as Kirk, so it’s a pretty damn good acting job. It’s a very impressive production and I’ll not trash them for their very hard work and obvious love of Star Trek.

Good job, guys. I recognize your tremendous effort and dedication.

194. MJ - August 7, 2012

@190 “All, given they probably use HD video cameras on this production, and probably have to crop down in post production on the computer to get to 1:33:1 resolution, it would seem a rather trivial step for them to provide the show in both the 1:33:1 and 16×9 formats — so the viewers can pick which format to watch.”

Exactly!!!!!

195. Red Dead Ryan - August 7, 2012

#189.

He forgot to mention that he wants to be just like Leonard Nimoy when he grows up! :-)

As for “The Artist”, that was a non-visual effects movie that was meant to recapture the look and feel of 1930’s cinema. It was meant for the big screen.

“Star Trek Continues” is meant for online watching, plus it features lots of visual effects space shots, which are better served in widescreen. In my opinon.

I know CBS created new widescreen space shots for TOS Remastered. But they decided to crop them to match the live footage which was shot in 4:3. I wish they had released the space shots in widescreen, but they’re saving those for a future release on the next format.

196. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

188 You saw a 70mm print, that doesnt mean it was SHOT in 70 mm. It was a blow up from the original 35mm.

Just like star wars, just like Batman, just like Top Gun, Just like Star Trek TMP and Star Trek II, and the list goes on an on.

197. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

190 1.33:1 is NOT a resolution, has nothing to do with Resolution.
Its an aspect Ratio.
the common aspect ratios for film and TV are 1.33:1, 1.85:1, 2.10:1. 2.35:1. and 2.55:1

198. Yancy - August 7, 2012

@ 196. Thank you Daniel Craig… Raiders was shot on Eastman Kodak 35mm using Panavision cameras. It was most definitely NOT shot 70mm, it was blown up.

199. Azrael - August 7, 2012

@189. Just because you asked MJ. I did say I would pop in every now and then, and I couldn’t not tell Chris and Grant they are awesome. Thanks for giving a crap my friend.

200. Pony Horton - August 7, 2012

Daniel Craig, just a little factoid: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND’s live action scenes involving any visual effects were shot on 65mm by Doug Trumbull and Vil Zsigmond because they knew that those scenes would be degraded by the post-processes required to add the VFX elements.

Back then it was all done on matte stands, downshooters, and optical printers. Each time a shot was reprinted in interneg or interpos for manipulation, it adds a generation of grain and blur.
Shooting conventional footage (non-effects shots) in 35mm is the norm, but this was the first time BFX shots for a 35mm film were shot in 65mm (theoretically 70mm); by the time the printing and post effects were added to the 65mm film elements, the grain structure and focus matched the original, clean 35mm shots.
As a result, the audience often had no idea a visual effect was coming and were pleasantly startled.
One good example is the shot of Melinda Dillon and Barry Cuffey on the mountain road as the first small UFO passes them.
It was so unexpected (because of no telltale increase in grain, blur, and contrast), the audience jumped out of their seats!

201. Red Dead Ryan - August 7, 2012

#199.

With all due respect, it’s a bit silly and redundant to tell us that you’re going to stop coming here but at the same time admit that you’ll still pop in from time to time. :-)

202. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 7, 2012

200 while you are correct, the post i was responding to was implying that spielberg had directed an entire film in 70mm (65mm) when in fact that was not the case.

But thank you for also explaining for everyone the reasoning for the sequences being shot that way.

203. Rolando - August 7, 2012

That is one really beautiful Enterprise Koerner has built! I wish these guys well!

204. MJ - August 7, 2012

@198 “@ 196. Thank you Daniel Craig… Raiders was shot on Eastman Kodak 35mm using Panavision cameras. It was most definitely NOT shot 70mm, it was blown up.”

Well you must be thanking the Lord for that Yancy….we all know you were hoping to see Raiders in 1:33:1 Academy black and white silent with subtitles.

:-))

PS: BTW, I have my pre-order in for Lawrence of Arabia. Now nobody here can tell me that wasn’t shot in 70 mm (65mm) Super-Panavision. But thanks Daniel Craig for ruining my memories of seeing Raiders in 70 mm. ;-)

205. Belkin - August 7, 2012

Incredible that, with the STC guys putting their hearts, souls, time and money into producing this labor of love, all some people can do is bitch, whine and argue about the aspect ratio.
People – 99% of us don’t give a toss about the aspect ratio, okay? We simply appreciate what the creative team/producers/actors are doing to give us MORE TREK. Because THAT is what matters.
Better yet – this is GOOD Trek, with the promise of more to come.

So please do the rest of us a favor and shut the hell up with your pointless nitpicking.

To the STC guys – thank you, thank you, thank you! And may the wind be at your backs for the future.

206. MJ - August 7, 2012

@205. Cut the crap, dude. I said I love the vignette and what I am seeing here, but that am trying to get the producers to reconsider the aspsect ratio decision. BFD!!! So you disagree with me — fine — so what, dude??? Stop acting like an offended little toddler about it, would you?

207. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 8, 2012

204 it shouldnt ruin your memories of seeing it in 70mm, that print still looked amazing.
out of curiosity mj what theatre did you see it at?

208. Toonloon - August 8, 2012

THE SETS ARE DESIGNED FOR 4:3. end of!

209. rose by any other name - August 8, 2012

#63 – “And Vic needs to smoke more. Bill Shatner had a deeper voice than Vic.”

Just wondering. This is the second mention on this site dealing with the notion that smoking can deepen a man’s voice. Is there actually any truth to this? Could this be one of the reasons many actors still seem to smoke, in spite of the various health warnings?

(If so, the smoking may also destroy the man’s overall vocal range.)

210. Cygnus-X1 - August 8, 2012

Wow, looks great! Great idea!

211. Dom - August 8, 2012

I like what I saw. Performances were generally good, but it’s way to early to judge the McCoy actor on such a small clip. He had more to to work with than Sulu and Chekov (ie more rope to be hanged with) but not enough to make an impression. The FX and lighting were excellent. It felt just like a cut ending from Turnabout intruder. Best of all, it was short and sweet!

As for all the OTT fighting over aspect ratios, how about we all just respect the makers for their decision and leave it at that?

Incidentally, Kubrick shot Academy ratio with 16:9 safety for masking in the cinema because he didn’t like black lines above and below the image on TV. So 4:3 showings of Kubrick films on old TVs are legit, as are 1.78:1 releases on Blu-ray. John Ford, in consultation with his cinematographer, would have shot on the relevant format the studio wanted him to use, as the 1950s saw studios wanting to use wider aspect ratios to combat television. Re-release prints of films like Gone with the Wind were masked for exhibition in the 1950s as well.

1960s TV shows could usually be matted to 1.66:1 as well for theatrical release in Europe: notably the Man From UNCLE films.

You can argue the merits of aspect ratio legitimacy until you’re blue in the face (see the recent debates over the restoration of Hammer’s Curse of Frankenstein,) but the truth is, often, everyone’s right and everyone’s wrong!

Anyway nice work, STC guys. I look forward to seeing your first full episode!

212. Cailin - August 8, 2012

I guess to me it just seemed close to parody. I don’t buy the actors as their roles other than Scotty and Uhura. I will want to see more of them to make sure, but I hated the McCoy and the Kirk seems like a guy who is doing almost a parody. I agree with the person who said his voice is too high for the role. He needs to lower it and knock off the Shatner manurisms. It’s weird and creepy. Still I want to see some more before deciding fully.

213. Phil123 - August 8, 2012

I’ll give it a chance when an episode comes along, but production/costumes aside, I was not particularly impressed by that. New Voyages/Phase II better IMO. except for Scotty, Dohan’s a better actor, regaurdless of who his dad was

214. Adam Bomb 1701 - August 8, 2012

#209 – Nat King Cole, IMHO one of the best vocalists ever, smoked three packs of cigarettes (Kool menthols, according to Wikipedia) a day because he believed it helped his voice achieve its rich, distinctive baritone sound. Cole made many TV appearances, and had his own show for about a year. He was seldom seen without a cigarette in his hand. Cole died of lung cancer on February 15, 1965 at the age of 45.
I don’t know if this answers your question, but I thought I’d bring up one of the better known examples.

215. MJ - August 8, 2012

@211 “John Ford, in consultation with his cinematographer, would have shot on the relevant format the studio wanted him to use, as the 1950s saw studios wanting to use wider aspect ratios to combat television.”

Exactly! He wasn’t going small format for artistic licence. Thanks for confirming this!

216. MJ - August 8, 2012

@208 “THE SETS ARE DESIGNED FOR 4:3. end of!”

I thought these are the same sets Phase II are using, and Phase II is shot in 16×9 aspect. Can someone please confirm?

217. MJ - August 8, 2012

@207. In a theater that no longer exists, which is a tragedy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hills_Theater

218. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

It’s interesting that the people who defend the STC producers’ decision to go 4:3 use arguments that don’t hold up, i.e John Ford, sets not built for widescreen, etc. It’s clear that John Ford would have gone to widescreen earlier if the technology had been available when he started out as a director. The sets for “Phase II” are the same as the STC sets as they both are based on the ones used in TOS. If “Phase II” is able to film in widescreen, then there is no reason why STC cannot.

219. MJ - August 8, 2012

@128 ” The sets for “Phase II” are the same as the STC sets as they both are based on the ones used in TOS. If “Phase II” is able to film in widescreen, then there is no reason why STC cannot.”

Thanks RDR for confirming this. I thought Toonloon (@208) was just making that up (or should we say: “pullling it out of his ass”), but needed confirmation. :-)

PS: Toonloon, I get that you are wrong on this, but dude, it looks really, really bad when you saying something incorrect in ALL CAPS. LOL

220. Basement Blogger - August 8, 2012

That’s a fan based production? The clip brought a smile to my face.

221. Jack - August 8, 2012

Wow. Where do I sign up to volunteer?

222. Ensign Ro- (Short for Roland) - August 8, 2012

I enjoyed it…thoroughly. I love fan productions in general…both good and bad. This one did a great job of capturing the look and sound of TOS. Sulu definitely has the Takei baritone down. :-) I thought it was an interesting and great idea to literally “pick up where TOS left off”. I will be following this along with Phase II. Personally, I can never get enough TOS Trek.

223. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

Here’s a consideration I have not seen mentioned too much yet in the aspect ratio discussion:

Theater availability.

I started in the Industry in Hollywood/Burbank as a theater projectionist, eventually working my way up to IMAX projectionist.

At the time Ford was making his films, most of the theaters in the U.S. were not large movie palaces, but rather small local cinemas. Most small towns, even farm towns, had a movie theater or two.

Most of these theaters were opened during the late 1920’s through the early 1940’s. Although many started out owned by the studios, this was no longer the case by the 1950’s.

Widescreen theatrical presentation was reserved at that time for large film venues, mostly L.A. and New York City, and a few other major cities. It was still a very specialized thing to outfit theaters and projection systems for widescreen formats, mostly due to the expense of projection lenses, the retrofitting of the theater, and a few other considerations. Stereo sound faced many of the same roadblocks.

As a result, even though TECHNICALLY there were a number of widescreen formats being played-with, the only ones to survive beyond the novelty phase were Vistavision, Cinemascope (anamorphic), and Cinerama.

It was simply too expensive at the time for theater owners to retrofit their theaters to widescreen. In the 1950’s, most producers and directors were at the whim of the studio when it came to aesthetics. And in most cases, unless it was an epic “Event” film, the studios wanted to put their films on as many screens as possible. And since most were still stuck in the 1:33 ratio, that’s one of the reasons films stayed 1:33 for so long.
In my years in the booth, I think I only ever ONCE ran a 1:66 film, if memory serves. I think it may have been Bergman’s THE MAGIC FLUTE.
Most every other film I’ve run has been native 1:85 or 2:33 Scope.

Also, just FYI, the human field of vision is naturally around 2:33:1, so Cinemascope is really a more naturalistic way to view films.

224. MJ - August 8, 2012

@223 “It was simply too expensive at the time for theater owners to retrofit their theaters to widescreen. In the 1950′s, most producers and directors were at the whim of the studio when it came to aesthetics. And in most cases, unless it was an epic “Event” film, the studios wanted to put their films on as many screens as possible. And since most were still stuck in the 1:33 ratio, that’s one of the reasons films stayed 1:33 for so long.”

Great point, Pony!!! And I commend you guys on Phase II for going widescreen. All things being equal, I will treat your series more seriously given the widescreen format. Thanks for not getting too cute and going to 1:33:1.

225. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

#223.

“Also, just FYI, the human field of vision is naturally around 2:33:1, so Cinemascope is really a more naturalistic way to view films.”

Exactly! I think that’s the final nail in the coffin for the pro-4:3 argument!

226. Dom - August 8, 2012

223. Pony Horton

Yeah, we Europeans did 1.66:1 for many years (see Dr No and From Russia With Love.)

I’m not defending either side of the AR argument. John Ford (watch any interview with the guy!) was an old-school, nuts-and-bolts, asses-in-seats director. Film is business and he happened to have a great eye and a talent for getting the maximum use out of film stock because of his editing background. When he wanted to make an event movie, he gave the studios what they needed. When he wanted to make a personal film he’d have been practical.

If a company that makes nonprofit Trek episodes and wants to keep with the same screen aspect as the original, good for them. There are no business concerns so really, who cares? The additional ending of Turnabout Intruder certainly feels more authentic for being 4:3.

There’s some real vitriol being spewed here. It’s pointless and nasty. End of the day, if it’s a good Trek production, I’ll watch it, regardless of aspect ratio.

227. Pauln6 - August 8, 2012

Production values look very high and performances look good. I recall Ki’m previous performance as Uhura was pretty good too – she had Nichelle’s air of efficiency down – more so than Zoe Saldana certainly. Even in that brief scene Doohan is also doing a really good job of channelling his dad!

Having said all that, Phase II did it and these guys need to do it too – bring back Janice!! The beehive is probably a step too far and a health and safety hazard by modern standards but a modern version of TOS should try to improve the female dynamic a bit. In the ongoing comic she’s more of a security guard but maybe they could make her a petty officer, plop her on transporter duty half the time and landing party duty the other.

228. K-7 - August 8, 2012

#216 “…these are the same sets Phase II are using, and Phase II is shot in 16×9 aspect.”

#223 ““Also, just FYI, the human field of vision is naturally around 2:33:1, so Cinemascope is really a more naturalistic way to view films.”

#225 “Exactly! I think that’s the final nail in the coffin for the pro-4:3 argument!”

Pony, Read Dead Ryan, MJ, I agree completely. I think we have put this discussion to bed. They should move to the 16×9 format while they can still do so.

CASE CLOSED!!!

229. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

#228.

Yup!!!

230. Jack Marshall - August 8, 2012

We shoot in HD and crop it to 4×3, which is the aspect ratio of the series we are trying to emulate. The resolution of the series online is 960×720. Aspect ratio and resolution are two different things.

It was my idea to go “retro” with the aspect ratio and I had to sell Vic and Matt Bucy, our DP, on the idea. In the end, we all agreed that if we’re doing TOS, it should look as close to the original show as possible. Ergo, it’s in 4×3 and will remain so for the run of the show.

This was a purely artistic decision and I think it sets us apart from other fan films which choose to look more modern.

Enjoy the show!

231. Vultan - August 8, 2012

#226

Well put, sir.

I like how the format matches Turnabout Intruder, too. A neat little tip of the hat to ’60s television. But I suppose if they ever wanted to expand to widescreen, they could always pull a Wizard of Oz and use the change as a plot device.

A wormhole sends the Enterprise spinning into the universe of 16×9!

232. Larry Talbot - August 8, 2012

Just like the three different aspect ratios in “Galaxy Quest.”

233. Jack Marshall - August 8, 2012

No one’s trying to be “cute” in doing 4×3 here. We just feel if we’re paying homage to a show we all grew up with, we want it to look just like that original show.

I was the one who decided to shoot Koenigs New Voyages episode in 16×9 which was the first New Voyages/P2 episode done in that format. All the episodes prior to that were in 4×3 (Come What May and In Harm’s Way). I like that they’ve stuck with the 16×9 format.

But for STC, we’re just proceeding with a different philosophy.

234. MJ - August 8, 2012

@233. Jack, thanks for the explanation. I strongly urge you reconsider. I can’t help thinking that in 10 years you will all be saying, “what is the hell were we thinking?”.

BTW, technically, do you cameras record everything in widescreen, and then you use computer editing to box it down to 4:3? If so, then you would have the option to provide it both formats.

Dude, I respect you artistic right to do this however your want, but why not provide it in both formats and let the users pick which one they want to watch it in?

Best, Mark

235. K-7 - August 8, 2012

#233. Mr. Marshal. First, let me thank you for what looks to be a great new direction here in fan Trek productions — I’m really looking forward to this!

That being said, if you want it to look just like the original show, then you should be using blu-screens and models to get the same special effects work instead of the obvious CGI-look. Seems to me that if you can make the exception of not doing special effects work that looks like the original show, then what is the big deal with giving us widescreen then as well?

I really think you are making a huge mistake here by not using the now standard 16×9 aspect ratio. And I can’t help but think as well that that is going to hurt your case with fan viewership in the healthy competition that you are going to be having with the Phase II group.

236. A14U - August 8, 2012

Glad to see 4:3 on this project! It helps keep a more “classic” ST look, as it was in TOS. I still shoot my films 4:3 myself because I prefer it that way. :)

237. Red Shirt Diaries - August 8, 2012

Jack Marshall,

Please count me in as well in recommending that you guys go with the 16×9 aspect ratio. That will make your new series stand the test of time. Only a handful of hardcore Trekkies want this in 4:3 — the vast majority of the huge numbers of more casual Trek fans will want to see this in 16×9.

238. Nick Cook - August 8, 2012

I really don’t get what all the fuss is about this being in 4:3. Honestly, whatever happened to respecting the artist’s intent?

If these guys want to shoot in 4:3, it’s their work and their decision.

239. MJ - August 8, 2012

@236. Ah yes, I can recall the many time that I have sat back in a theater watching your 4:3 films. Thank goodness you use 4:3. Your films are classics! :-))

240. Yancy - August 8, 2012

@ 233 Thanks for popping in Jack, and like most here I really don’t see what the big deal is with shooting 4:3… ultimately it’s your work and I respect you decision (as I would if you went with 16:9).

And as for the insipid “stand the test of time comment,” I can think of ohhhh some 200+ films off the top of my head that stand the test of time just fine in their original Academy ratio.

241. MJ - August 8, 2012

@235 “I really think you are making a huge mistake here by not using the now standard 16×9 aspect ratio. And I can’t help but think as well that that is going to hurt your case with fan viewership in the healthy competition that you are going to be having with the Phase II group.”

Agreed!

242. MJ - August 8, 2012

@238 “I really don’t get what all the fuss is about this being in 4:3. Honestly, whatever happened to respecting the artist’s intent? If these guys want to shoot in 4:3, it’s their work and their decision.”

They are still early in the production, so some of us are hoping that they will change your mind. What is your problem with some of us offering our opinions on this? You disagree with us — I get that — so what?

243. MJ - August 8, 2012

meant to say “that they will change their minds”

244. Jack Marshall - August 8, 2012

We aren’t in competition for viewers or ratings or sponsors, etc. We make this for our own amusement then share it on the internet. Whether it’s viewed or not is solely up to the end user. We don’t think we’re the next Trek series or official in any way. We’re just hanging out with our childhood friends and bringing them to life in the way we remember.

I do love and appreciate all the discussion and views. This is Star Trek at it’s best, infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Everyone has a voice and you’re entitled to be heard.

Next vignette is coming in October I believe. Until then, fire away! I’m happy to have sparked such a lively debate and will weigh all I read in the weeks ahead.

Rock out with your Spock Out!!

245. Nick Cook - August 8, 2012

@242, MJ.

You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. Apparently, some of the rest of us aren’t entitled to have a differing opinion.

Personally I don’t care what format they release it in, because there is no right or wrong between the two. In fact, I happen prefer widescreen, but my preferences are irrelevant, and are just that; *preferences*.

As I said, they’ll release it in whatever format they want, and that’s as it should be.

246. JB - August 8, 2012

As an amateur piece of work this felt like a step up from all the others out there. Chris Doohan does a pretty credible Montgomery Scott. Did it seem to anyone else that the music was too loud and competing with the dialogue?

247. MJ - August 8, 2012

@244. I commend your post, Jack. But having been involved in fandom for many year myself, I really doubt that their will not be some good-natured competition between Phase II and your production. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Looking forward to your October release — thanks!

248. A - August 8, 2012

What going on star trek continues and star trek phase ll running season 4 huh come on fix do right.

249. Darkowski - August 8, 2012

Wow!

First time I’m actually looking forward to a fan made Trek. :-)

Can’t wait!

250. Vultan - August 8, 2012

#244

Looking forward to seeing more, Jack.

But have you considered circular or possibly trapezoid format? I don’t much care for triangular. It’s too… pointy and European looking—not that there’s anything wrong with that.

People’s personal aspect ratio preferences are nobody’s business but their own!

251. DiscoSpock - August 8, 2012

#233 – I’m in favor of the 4×3 aspect ratio, and I hope you maintain it despite the nonstop wailing of some folks. Unlike some overly vocal voices around here, I don’t think it’s “dumb” or “idiotic” at all. It matches TOS nicely, and it’s a completely valid artistic choice, so stick to your guns! Uh…phasers.

Of course, if you could make the next episode in 3D IMAX with full surround sound and Scratch’n’Sniff effects…well, some people still wouldn’t be satisfied, but it would be awesome all the same! ;)

#245 Well said! Now, prepare for the inevitable flaming that you’ll receive for daring to voice an opinion that differs from certain others around here.

252. Dennis Bailey - August 8, 2012

#238: ” I really don’t get what all the fuss is about this being in 4:3. Honestly, whatever happened to respecting the artist’s intent?”

Nick, you know that respect for “artist’s intent” – or any value other than “what I want” – has never been a driving force in fandom (unless it happens to suit one’s argument).

And yes, the inability of some folks here to accept a difference in taste as just that is immature in the extreme.

253. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

@235, If I may, shooting miniatures against bluescreen or greenscreen is a whole new can of worms.

I used to work at Van der Veer Photo Effects, where a number of TOS episodes had their opticals done. VdV’s bread-and-butter was bluescreen work, for which they were highly respected. In fact, Frank Van der Veer and his father were among the first pioneers of the technique, along with L.B. “Bill” Abbott from their days at Fox.

The kind of lenses and camera support equipment and lighting gear required for effective miniature bluescreen shooting would be prohibitive.
Shooting with the same cameras they shoot live-action with, for miniatures would be untenable. The lenses alone would not work well for such shots, and the work required during matting them would take 5-10 times as long as simply using CGI, which, when created and composited properly, easily stands-up to miniatures, and often surpasses them.
When I view TWOK I can see all kinds of issues with the miniatures because the camera got too close and revealed improper modeling or paint problems.
It’s also very difficult to simulate live people walking in the windows of a physical model, but in CG it’s not nearly so difficult.

In short, CG is here to stay, and already is surpassing the visual quality of miniatures.

It’s my PERSONAL opinion as a VFX artist of over 30 years, that those who insist mini’s are better in general than CGI are viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.

Models are cool because we can hold them, display them, light them, and the WOW factor is big.

But, properly-done, CG is more effective and allows far greater creative freedom. The problem is so many CG “artists” will do only the minimum amount of work required, and then wonder why the shots look “artificial.”

I see a lot of CG videos of the Enterprise all over the web. In 80% of the cases, my only thought is, “This is not even pre-viz quality. They should have given the work a few more passes before declaring it finished.”

254. MJ - August 8, 2012

@252 “It’s my PERSONAL opinion as a VFX artist of over 30 years, that those who insist mini’s are better in general than CGI are viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.”

I agree. Was point really was that if the STC producers are so hell-bent on going with 1:33:1 for the reason that it has to look exactly like an TOS episode, then they should not get a free-pass to use CGI. It is hypocritical. Either do it all exactly like the original was done, or make a couple modern exceptions that fans would prefer — CGI effects and 16 x9 resolution.

Your are not suppose to have your cake and eat it too, right? ;-)

255. MJ - August 8, 2012

@251. What a shock that a disco-lover prefers the1.33:1 aspect ratio.

Like none of us saw that coming? LOL

256. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

Well, MJ, no offense, but I have no strong feelings about that one way or another.

The folks at STC are allowed to use whatever means they choose to get the job done.

This is crafting movies, not politics. There are NO rules other than “Do whatever you must within reason to get the image on the screen.”

257. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

Oh, and I love disco, too.

Disco may have “sucked,” but Donna Summer SURE made it TASTE GOOD!

258. MJ - August 8, 2012

@255 “The folks at STC are allowed to use whatever means they choose to get the job done. This is crafting movies, not politics. There are NO rules other than “Do whatever you must within reason to get the image on the screen.” ”

Sure Pony. But I can always hope that they will read fan feedback here and change their mind about the aspect ratio. That is some of us are doing here — hoping they will change their minds!

259. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 8, 2012

Hmmmm on a different note… to bad TrekMovie isn’t reporting on Star Trek: Secret Voyage which released their first episode already and it’s better than this Continues junk…

Here is Secret Voyages first episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofvvWIqJtGM&list=UU0_2YmiJk2L6MMq4MgUsQ8Q&index=1&feature=plcp

260. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

Those of us who prefer widescreen just believe that its the better format for a visual-effects laden show. Sure, we respect creative freedom, and the right of the producers to do whatever they feel, but some of us happen to disagree with their decision to film in 4:3.

But apart from that, I enjoyed what I saw of “Star Trek Continues” and I hope it enjoys the same level of success that “Phase II” currently gets. :-)

261. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

@259, Baxter, do you have anything more constructive to offer than “junk?”

Such remarks certainly don’t encourage me to want to follow your link.

We’re supposed to be above this kind of thing.

IDIC goes for fan film projects, too.

262. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 8, 2012

@257 Without disco, would we now have techno?

263. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

Without disco, we wouldn’t have the U2 song “Discoteque”. :-)

264. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

@259, Baxter, in your remarks, you attempt to encourage viewers to visit your STAR TREK: SECRET VOYAGE film by comparing your work as of higher quality than the efforts of CONTINUES.

“…to bad TrekMovie isn’t reporting on Star Trek: Secret Voyage which released their first episode already and it’s better than this Continues junk…”

I have viewed your film, and I must say, I think your efforts would have been better served by simply offering us the link and not making ANY comparisons, especially not saying that yours is better and theirs is “junk.”

I would also offer the following criticisms, and please note these are my OPINIONS only, not gospel. This is not an attempt to put you down, or be snarky.
I have over 30 years professional directing and editing experience, mostly on commercials, pilots, industrials, and some VFX work on at least ten feature films. So, I think I know my craft.

Much of your film is shot on green screen. The matting/compositing is unfinished and/or not properly done. The contrasts, tones, lighting, color correction, are all imroperly executed, and the effect is glaring and obvious. You need to make a few more passes at before considering it done. Frankly, the poor lighting, visual aspect, and audio make it look and sound as though it was shot in your garage or spare bedroom.

The editing is simply rough, looking like it was done by somebody who owns an editing program, but never studied professional film/video editing techniques. Just because one owns the equipment does not make them an editor. Start by studying the work of Sergei Eisenstein, the father of modern editing techniques. There is a “grammar” to shooting and cutting motion pictures that you need to study.

Same for the staging and camera work. It looked like something inexperienced students would have done, or Ed Wood might have done. The shots were poorly-composed, did not edit well together, and did not take advantage of the possibilities you may have had.

I would encourage you to consider getting a good comic book artist to create storyboards for you, to help visualize how the shots can work together seamlessly, compellingly telling the story. A lot of film makers find this very effective.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do a lot of work on P2, VFX, editing, etc. I have no dog in this fight, as I’m in no way associated with Continues and refuse to get into any beefs the other people at these productions may have had with each other.

But I must say, after reading your remarks and then viewing your film, I find your assertion that SECRET VOYAGE is somehow “better” to be unfair, and completely inaccurate, not to mention sounding petty and jealous.

Sorry, sir.

265. MJ - August 8, 2012

@264. But Pony, you got to admit, he had some really good looking ladies in his production! :-)) LOL

266. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 8, 2012

@ 259 I have to agree, opening with a blatant insult is not putting your best foot forward, and will turn people away from your production.

I have to agree with Mr. Horton. I was initially hopeful based on the trailers, but didnt make it 10 minutes into the actual episode. The green screen work pulled me right out of the story. The chase scene at the beginning wasn’t beleivable with the “micro torpedo” hits so close to the actors. Hand grenades make bigger explosion. You could have a top-notch production with more planning and a lot more patience, but promoting it with arrogant forum posts won’t make it so.

267. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 8, 2012

@265, Admittely so, but to make a good show with ONLY that, he would have to switch from sci-fi to burlesque. = )

268. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

I watched only about five minutes of “Secret Voyage”. It was so poor, I couldn’t watch anymore. The shots weren’t composited or set up very well, the visual effects were bad, the photography should have been a lot better and clearer, and the acting was subpar.

#259.

I think maybe you should re-evaluate your own work before slamming someone else’s. If anyone here produced “junk”, it was you.

269. Vice_Admiral_Baxter - August 8, 2012

WoW look at the attacks I’m reading after my last post..

@264 This is NOT my fan film. I do in fact like it better than Continues. I also like Phase II better than Continues even though I know I will get attacked for saying my opinion on the matter.

If Continues is going to do a story about Kirk and Co. they better be able to act like them this is where Continues fails miserably with the exceptions of Spock and Scotty with Spock being the better of the two.

BEFORE anyone else attacks me they need to go do some serious research about TREK.

270. MJ - August 8, 2012

@269. Dude, it is just hard to take Secret Voyages seriously — it is obviously pretty lame. That’s all. Don’t take it personally.

271. Red Dead Ryan - August 8, 2012

#269.

Okay, “Secret Voyage” might not be your project, but you did post it. And flaunt it. The rest of us disagree with your assessment of it. I’m astonished as to how you can claim its better than “Continues”. Your criticisms lack credibility.

272. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

@269, Sir, nobody here attacked you. Most of us offered accurate, measure critiques of the work.

And I must ask, if it’s not even YOUR work, then…

1 ) Why would you post a remark that was so proprietary and insulting at all, and…

2 ) Why are you being so defensive, acting so put-upon? Why do you even care?

273. Daniel Craig Is my wookie bitch - August 8, 2012

218, I side with artistic and creative intent. It doesnt matter what aspect ratio its in. If they have made the artistic or creative choice as The film makers than thats what it should be end of story. Again as a audience member its not my place to dictate or question why a creative team has chosen to present their story in the manner they have.

Whether its Academy, Flat , or Scope.

Pony out of curiosity what theatre(s) in Hollywood were you a projectionist at? And what years, just trying to figure out if we actually run in the same circles or know any of the same people.

274. Daniel Craig Is my wookie bitch - August 8, 2012

256, surely you realize that Politics and the movie industry go hand and hand. lol Entertainment industry politics are just as nasty and bad, real world politics lol

275. MJ - August 8, 2012

@273 “Again as a audience member its not my place to dictate or question why a creative team has chosen to present their story in the manner they have.”

Again, it is my hope, that since they are still early in their process, that they could at least listen to some fan advice concerning the aspect ratio — specifically that we won’t think it less like TOS if they go with the modern 16×9 (just like we don’t begrudge them using CGI instead of TOS series blue-screen/models approach). I am not dictating; I am suggesting they reconsider before they fully cast their dye on this.

276. Pony Horton - August 8, 2012

@273, Daniel, I started at a small theater/editing facility called Valley Projection in 1976 until 1979 running a 35mm changeover system.

I have also operated at a few theaters as a substitute projectionist for friends, such as at the Vagobond Theater in L.A. just near MacArthur Park in the mid-1980’s.

In 1987-89 I did matte paintings/cinematography for several Roger Corman films. Those were glass shots and held-take negative matte shots, hand-painted.

From 1987 until 1991 I was a projectionist at the Mitsubishi IMAX Theater at the California Museum of Science and Industry, and again for a short time in 1994-5.

In 1992 I was a 35mm double-system screening projectionist at Van der Veer Photo Effects for the summer, running dailies from Foto-Kem.

I now own the two 35mm Simplex projectors I used at Van der Veer. Hoping to build a man cave/theater around them someday.

277. Daniel Craig Is my wookie bitch - August 8, 2012

For the record 2.35:1 is my prefered aspect ratio for films,
While I would have wished Joss Whedon would have filmed The Avengers in scope, like all the other movies in the marvel universe have been. It was his choice and his call, and he has said that he works better in the Flat 1.85:1 aspect ratio so I respect that cause its HIS choice as the director of the film.

278. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 8, 2012

269: OK, it’s not your project, bad assumption. Still, “junk” is hardly a constructive criticism, in that it said nothing about what you think could be improved. If you simply don’t like the project overall, or the people involved, then simply have some manners and stay away. No need to take a dump on the front porch. Your’e not being criticised for promoting it as much as the WAY you did it.

And I stand by my criticisms of Secret Voyage. It was disappointing and I pointed out what i think could be improved. I’m Hoping they take the criticisms in the right spirit and improve, otherwise, there are other things that I co enjoy, no big.

279. Daniel Craig Is my wookie bitch - August 8, 2012

276 Very cool indeed, And color me impressed with your background working on those corman films. Roger Corman is one of the true greats of the movie industry.

Before Heading out to L.A. I was the head projectionist for what was at the Time Muvico’s Flag Ship theatre in Palm Harbor Florida, also opened and operatedt the booth for Muvico Point Orlando,which was home of the first Multiplex to have a IMAX screen on the East Coast. I worked as a projectionist for a time upon moving to L.A. at one of the Former ICONIC MANN Theatres, eventually I moved away from the projection side of the industry and more towards the Public Relations side. with MANN going defunct earlier this year, I am now moving full steam ahead with some former co-workers on starting on our own small indie production outfit.

280. K-7 - August 8, 2012

Why does almost everyone who supports the 1:33:1 format here seem to be constantly telling everyone who disagrees that they are “dictating” to the creators? What is wrong with them sharing their opinion on this? I mean, isn’t that the point here with STC having this article on Trekmovie.com — so that they can see how the fans react? I mean look at Phase II — they recast Kirk based on fan suggestions on that account.

This idea that jbecause I am recommending the creators go to a 16×9 format that I am being disrespecfful of their artistic license is ridicuous. I am just providing them viewer feedback that hopefully they at least might read, and if I am lucky, consider. What is so wrong with that? Why is that getting everyone so worked up? What is the offense I am committing?

281. Red Shirt Diaries - August 8, 2012

Good points K-7. It seems a lot of people here are going overboard in trying to silence some folks just because they are providing some feedback to the STC group that they don’t agree with. That is not right, and I think the STC group probably would like to get as much fan feedback as they can right now based on our viewing this preview.

282. Nick Cook - August 9, 2012

So when some people repeat the same argument ad nauseum, it’s “feedback”, but when others counter, it’s “going overboard.”

Having an opinion is one thing. Hitting people over the head with it is another.

283. daniel craig is my wookie bitch - August 9, 2012

280, A story teller first and formost should tell a story that THEY want to see, if the audience likes it as well thats icing on the cake. But you should never compromise your vision just cause your potential audience who hasnt even seen the first completed episode/ or film yet, thinks you should do something differently.

the great thing about producing outside the studio system is the one entity in the past that could force you to change your vision, is no longer there to force something that compromises your vision.

Like I said I have no problem with whatever aspect ratio they want to chose to shoot in, cause its there vision and their choice. I just have a problem with people questioning their vision and offering up well it wont fill my HD TV as a reason why. Now if you ask what is the reasoning why you shot this way, or did you consider shooting this way then thats one thing. but to just say that shooting a certain way is out of place today, or that they shouldnt cause it doesnt fill your tv’s picture area thats what i have a problem with.

284. daniel craig is my wookie bitch - August 9, 2012

280, 281 see my post 277

285. Dom - August 9, 2012

There are an awful lot of imperatives flying around here: people ‘must’ shoot widescreen, ‘can’t use CGI.’

Y’know what? People need to back the heck off and let the filmmakers do their own thing!

286. DiscoSpock - August 9, 2012

#282 Again, well said, Nick! Better gird up your loins for the inevitable attacks! How dare you and others disagree with the 16×9 crowd?! Expressing an opinion is only valid if it’s THEIR opinion; all others are supposed to creep away in silence, and if you dare to disagree, then you are going overboard…you crazy nut!

287. DiscoSpock - August 9, 2012

#280 – Providing “viewer feedback” is one thing. Some people here have declared it “idiotic” to use anything but 16×9, and to a lot of us, that comes across as trying to dictate. When you say you prefer 16×9, that’s feedback; when someone posts repeatedly that anything but 16×9 is stupid, that’s something else.

#281 – What a joke! The only people trying to silence anyone’s opinion are the one or two people who regularly shout down anyone who disagrees with their edicts around here. One person is responsible for roughly 17% of the comments in this thread, and that one person has repeatedly proclaimed that anything but 16×9 is “dumb” and “idiotic,” so I don’t think the pro-16×9 crowd is in any danger of being silenced by those who disagree.

And yes, I counted that one person’s posts and ran the math because that one person (with one other sidekick) always shouts down anyone who disagrees with his/her opinions, and I was curious to see if my perception of that person (i.e., dominates every thread) matched the reality. Out of 285 comments so far, 1 out of 6 is from that ONE person, whose opinion is now well known and simply being repeatedly shoved down our throats if we dare to disagree.

To a lot of us, that level of repeated and vehement domination of a thread is “dictating” to both the video-makers and to the other users of this thread.

It also makes this an unpleasant forum for many fans and content creators alike, but since Anthony Pascale continues to allow said user(s) to dominate things–even to the point of flaming other users–I guess the rest of us just have to accept it or leave, which a number of users have already done.

So, spare us the persecution complex: The 16×9 crowd has more than dominated this thread.

288. northstar - August 9, 2012

@259 – so this is how “bad” a normal fan production looks like compared to STC or P2. I´m sure all involved had a good time working on it and the best intentions – but they need to learn and practice a LOT before they get to the level of those two production. Especially that horrible greenscreen work…

289. DiscoSpock - August 9, 2012

#280 Providing “viewer feedback” is one thing. Some people here have declared it “idiotic” and “dumb” to use anything but 16×9, and to a lot of us, that comes across as trying to dictate. When you say you prefer 16×9, that’s feedback; when someone posts repeatedly that anything but 16×9 is stupid, that’s something else.

#281 What a joke! The only people trying to silence anyone’s opinion are the one or two people who ALWAYS try to shout down anyone who disagrees with their edicts from on high. One person is responsible for roughly 17% of the comments in this thread, and that one person has repeatedly said anything but 16×9 is “idiotic,” so I don’t think the pro-16×9 crowd is in any danger of being silenced by those who disagree.

And yes, I counted that one person’s posts and ran the math because that one person (with one other sidekick) always shouts down anyone who disagrees with his/her opinions, and I was curious to see if my perception of that person (dominates every thread) matched the reality. Out of 285 comments so far, 1 of every 6 has been from ONE person, whose opinion is now well known and simply being repeatedly shoved down our throats.

To a lot of us, that level of repeated and vehement domination of a thread is “dictating” to both the video-makers and to the other users of this thread. And it shows that the pro-16×9 crowd is far from being silenced by opposing views.

290. DiscoSpock - August 9, 2012

Oops…sorry about the double post there. I thought the first attempt had failed. Grr…I hate double posters!

291. Mike Okuda - August 9, 2012

Very cool. Enjoyed this a lot! One of the great joys of fan films is that each production gets to make their own choices.

I enjoy Phase II’s use of 16×9 because I think the sets look really cool in widescreen and because it gives a modern look to their show. I like ST Continues’s use of 4×3 because it feels more like the original. It’s great that two different groups are each making different, but valid artistic choices. Why should either be limited to the other’s choices?

292. Yancy - August 9, 2012

@ 283 Well said Daniel. I liken the “16×9 only” crowd to those people back in the 90s and early part of the last decade who hated movies shown in widescreen on their 4×3 TVs. They insisted on pan and scan because it “filled the screen” and said they were “losing part of the picture.”

Even after you showed them how they were in fact seeing the entire image as the director intended they would just fall back on the argument that “it doesn’t fill my screen.”

293. Red Dead Ryan - August 9, 2012

#287.

I find it hypocritical that you accuse some of us of ramming our opinions down our throats and complain how a few of us are trying to silence the 4:3 supporters. Now you’re trying to shoot us down!

Some of us just don’t understand why STC feels that 4:3 is the way to go. That format is rather limiting. Yeah, its used to match how TOS was filmed, but that to me is rather slavish. After all, STC uses cgi models and not physical ones.

From what I’ve seen from STC, it is quite a good production. I’m just not a fan of 4:3 when widescreen is available.

294. Red Dead Ryan - August 9, 2012

#292.

Dude, your “pan and scan” argument is rather moot since in the ’90’s, most films were adjusted to fill the screen (4:3) with only a select few being offered in widescreen on VHS.

295. MJ - August 9, 2012

It’s really funny to me reading these latest posts. A few posters were basically pleading with everyone that they just wanted to share their viewer feedback with STC, and yet here again we have multiple to response with people saying stuff like:

“People need to back the heck off and let the filmmakers do their own thing!”

“It also makes this an unpleasant forum for many fans and content creators alike, but since Anthony Pascale continues to allow said user(s) to dominate things–even to the point of flaming other users–I guess the rest of us just have to accept it or leave, which a number of users have already done. So, spare us the persecution complex: The 16×9 crowd has more than dominated this thread.”

‘I just have a problem with people questioning their vision and offering up well it wont fill my HD TV as a reason why. ”

“Having an opinion is one thing. Hitting people over the head with it is another.”

Sheesh guys. Some of us just have an opinion different from yours here, and we are providing it to STC so that they might just at least consider it. This does ring a bit like the thought police trying to shut us down — especially as Disco Spock basically pleases with Anthony to silence us. Why are many of you so afraid that STC might read these rather mild suggestions to consider a different aspect ratio. Why is this so offensive to the delicate sensibilities for us to just simply share our opinion on this with others….I AM NOT GETTING THE ANIMOSITY HERE?????

@283 “I find it hypocritical that you accuse some of us of ramming our opinions down our throats and complain how a few of us are trying to silence the 4:3 supporters. Now you’re trying to shoot us down! Some of us just don’t understand why STC feels that 4:3 is the way to go. That format is rather limiting. Yeah, its used to match how TOS was filmed, but that to me is rather slavish. After all, STC uses cgi models and not physical ones. From what I’ve seen from STC, it is quite a good production. I’m just not a fan of 4:3 when widescreen is available.”

Well said, RDR.

296. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 9, 2012

I’d like to add that, athough I am in favor of the widescreen format, It’s not a “make or break” issue with me. As long as the Story, acting, and production are of (reasonably) good quality, I will be watching. Heck, I’m still hoping for that last act of Starship Exeter. = D

297. K-7 - August 9, 2012

#294 #195. Thanks Red Dead and MJ for the support. Yes, I am getting a bit disillusioned with all the animosity here. I was just trying to put in a good word for the widescrren format with the hope that the producers to STC might just reconsider. That is all! I am not sure why I am getting all these mean-spirited beat-downs from folks like Nick and Disco Spock? As an example, I just had some minor viewer feedback here suggesting that they reconsider the aspect ratio, and I get at “term-paper” sized post from Disco Spock basically trashing me. This is not right! In fact, I would encourage Anthony to reign in Disco Spock.

298. DiscoSpock - August 9, 2012

@293 RDR, if you don’t understand why STC thinks 4:3 is the way to go, it’s only because you’re ignoring the reasons they’ve given. You disagree, which is fine. The problem is that you and at least one other user here CONSTANTLY harass anybody who doesn’t agree with YOU.

Just because a format is available doesn’t mean it MUST be used. Not long ago, the movie “The Artist” did rather well, and it’s black and white–gasp! Shock! The horror! They didn’t use color?! How limiting! And what about all these horrible shows and movies being made in 2D when we already have 3D projectors, and even 3D TV sets?! Good lord, all this 2D stuff must drive you insane! And since the 3D format exists, it MUST be used at ALL times, right? At least, by the reasoning you keep posting, that’s the way it should be.

STC is choosing to use 4:3, and you don’t like it. Great. We all know your opinion. So why do you feel a need to harass and sneer at anyone who DOES like the 4:3 choice?

You’ve more than expressed your opinion, so why can’t you stop harassing EVERY SINGLE PERSON who disagrees with you? Or go ahead and flame away, if that makes you feel better.

Also, compare the number of posts I’ve made on this thread to the number YOU have made and the number MJ has made. (You’ve posted 18, MJ’s posted 48.) You two have dominated this conversation, attacking ANY opinion that differs from yours, and I’ve posted about half a dozen comments.

Including THIS comment, I’ve posted SIX comments in this thread, and since two were duplicates, and one was an apology for the duplicates,so I’ve really only posted FOUR distinct comments in this thread. Meanwhile, you’ve already posted TWO just since my last comment. There’s just no comparison there, buddy, so stop the persecution-complex nonsense.

Nobody’s shooting you down or silencing you; we’re all just trying to get YOU to stop trying to silence everyone else.

299. A14U - August 9, 2012

Thanks, MJ! In fact, I have screened several of my short films, both 16mm and Super 8 (all 4:3, though I’ve also played around with anamorphic lenses and Honeywell Elmo Super 8 3D rigs back in the day), in auditoriums at film festivals, schools, and conventions starting in the early ’70s.

To each, his/her/its own! May we all live long and prosper! :)

300. star trackie - August 9, 2012

The artist creates his or her vision, be it 16:9. or 4:3. The individual will choose whether to watch or not. There is no money exchanged in this trade…there are no ratings to crown a king. No winners, no losers. It simply is what it is, watch it or don’t.

301. Red Shirt Diaries - August 9, 2012

This is getting silly, folks. Both sides think the other side is trying to silence them, when what we are really getting is dozens of posts on both sides saying the same thing over and over. This is getting beyond boring.

302. K-7 - August 9, 2012

@297. Disco Spock, where are you seeing from those of us who have been mainly discussing this topic here over the past two days any statements that we are insisting “THEY MUST” or “WE DEMAND” they go to widescreen??? You said above:

“The problem is that you and at least one other user here CONSTANTLY harass anybody who doesn’t agree with YOU. Just because a format is available doesn’t mean it MUST be used.”

Where is the “harass”ment and where are we saying “it MUST be used.” ???

You are imagining this, and you should apologize for it; or Anthony should reign you in. This vitriol is uncalled for.

303. Vultan - August 9, 2012

Well, this has been entertaining.

I mean, does anyone else find it just a bit hilarious to see a bunch of people carrying on and arguing back and forth like the Scopes Monkey Trial, some giving passionate defenses and others equally passionate attacks, all of it over… the shape of… a box?

“Sometimes you just have to bow to the absurd.”

304. Red Shirt Diaries - August 9, 2012

@297 “Including THIS comment, I’ve posted SIX comments in this thread,”

But DS,your posts are like pages and pages long. Are you working perhaps on your PhD Dissertation here with the topic being getting even with Red Dead and MJ based on past grudges? ;-0

Seriously, lighten up! You make Red Dead and MJ look “nice” by comparison here. They have actually seemed pretty restrained here considering some of their past antics on this site.

305. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 9, 2012

While we’re discussing format, Maybe Continues could skip DVD and release Blu-Ray ISO’s. DVD is obsolete by 5 years.

306. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 9, 2012

*ducks*

307. Yancy - August 9, 2012

@ 294 You clearly never collected on laser disc during the 90s. Since it was considered more of a film aficionado’s format most films were released in matted widescreen presentations. That trend started to trickle over with the advent of DVD….

This was all well before HDTVs became commonplace.

308. Nick Cook - August 9, 2012

296. K-7

“Mean spirited beat downs”? This is exactly the fourth time I’ve posted, and I’m only posting again because you specifically singled me out. Did you actually *read* anything I wrote? I was actually pretty mild, certainly wasn’t “mean-spirited” and didn’t single anyone out. Relax.

309. Yancy - August 9, 2012

Ok last post on the 4:3 matter. The following is a trailer for an independent film a friend of mine is working on here in Phoenix, AZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjGL-rOcoQ

This was intentionally shot 4:3 to emulate the style of a 1950s film noir “Red Menace” thriller. I’ve been working as a screenwriter/co-editor/producer on this and there were very intentional decisions made for the production.

For example A LOT of action plays out in wider master shots to emulate the film making of the era, plus we intentionally let some shots play out a little longer rather than cut them down; again a conscious decision the director wanted to make.

Just like Jack we were asked by a couple of our other producers to shoot 16×9, but Doug (the director) wanted to emulate that low budget B film noir look from studios like RKO.

310. zperk - August 9, 2012

Wow, I’m incredibly impressed. While Phase II always succeeded in making everything LOOK right, the Star Trek Continues team has succeeded in making everything FEEL right – and on their first time at bat! Can’t wait to see their first original episode!

311. DiscoSpock - August 9, 2012

I stand by everything I’ve posted. A small pack of you attack every person who disagrees, or who dares to COMPLAIN about being attacked, and it’s tiresome.

Sorry I dared to speak up and to argue against the dominating users. I’ll just take my comments, and my page views, to some other Trek site. No loss to any of you, certainly no loss to me, and no loss to anyone I warn away from this site. (The last few people I recommended it to refused to participate because of the tone in these forums, so I’ll just stop mentioning this site altogether.)

Anthony Pascale, thanks for what USED to be an enjoyable forum for Trekkies. Sadly, you’ve allowed RDR and certain others to make it miserable for anyone who disagrees with them. You’ve even WARNED RDR–in this very thread–and still, he and his pack run the forum. And ruin the forum.

For the rest of you, don’t bother replying to anything I’ve said–or go ahead, flame away, I won’t be checking here anymore. The only thing that would bring me back to Trekmovie for ANYTHING is an email from Anthony saying he’d cleaned up the forums, but since THAT will never happen, I’m outta here. LLAP!

312. MJ - August 9, 2012

Disco Spock cracks me up. He provided multiple huge posts in the several hundred-word mega-class, yet bitches about people who send many more posts of less than 100 words typically.

Beetween Aug 8 and 9, here are the total words posted by Disco Spock, RRR an myself:

Disco Spock: 1320 words

RDR: 480 words

MJ: 1438 words

My, but what a hypocrite we have here, folks! Disco Spock has been posting about the same level of total words over the past two days as me, and nearly triple the amount of words as Red Dead Ryan.

The facts don’t lie! Sleeping dogs are no longer laying down here.

313. K-7 - August 9, 2012

Anthony, could you please reign in Disco Spock. Thanks!

314. Red Shirt Diaries - August 9, 2012

#304 “But DS,your posts are like pages and pages long. Are you working perhaps on your PhD Dissertation here with the topic being getting even with Red Dead and MJ based on past grudges? ;-0″

I think you may have hit on why Disco Spock is “going nuclear” here. Sheesh, some people really need to ease up on these grudges and the settling of old perceived scores. His/her supposed outrage here is just plan infantile.

So, perhaps it’s for the best that Disco Spock is removing himself from these boards.

315. MJ - August 9, 2012

@311 “Sorry I dared to speak up and to argue against the dominating users. I’ll just take my comments, and my page views, to some other Trek site. No loss to any of you, certainly no loss to me, and no loss to anyone I warn away from this site….For the rest of you, don’t bother replying to anything I’ve said–or go ahead, flame away, I won’t be checking here anymore.”

Jesus Christ, dude. Cry me a river, get yourself some Pampers, and fracking GROW UP! What a baby!

316. K-7 - August 9, 2012

Yea, Geeze Louise, what a crybaby.

317. Red Dead Ryan - August 9, 2012

I was warned for flaming a few days ago by Anthony. I’ve tried to be civil here. On this thread, no post of mine can be considered imflammatory or over the top by anyone who is sane. But Disco Spock is making me, MJ, and K-7 out to be bullies, when in fact DS is trying to bait us (perhaps me in particular, he seems to hold grudges) into responding with vitriol. I haven’t, nor has anyone else, put him down or try to shut him up.

Disco Spock really needs to lay off. He also needs to look in the mirror. He accuses us of playing the “victim card”, when in fact, he has developed the persecution complex, which he plays against us to bait us into his crazy arguments. When he can’t face facts that he is the one acting untoward, he tries to get us banned.

Disco Spock is one of these people who provokes others, and when things go against him, plays the innocent victim card and tries to get others into trouble. I’m not buying that, and neither is anyone else!

#307.

Laserdisc? The format that never took off? LOL! I think only about twenty movies were released on that format! Mighty expensive too, if I remember correctly.

318. Yancy - August 9, 2012

Riiiiiiiiiight!. Laser Disc eventually made up about 2-3% of the retail video market. Probably around 3 million players in houses.

I had a collection of over 100 discs (including Star Trek I-VI and a few of the TOS episodes). $49.95-69.00 for most discs depending on the release. Toward the end of its run most new releases were priced at $39.95.

319. Dennis Bailey - August 9, 2012

#260:”Those of us who prefer widescreen just believe that its the better format for a visual-effects laden show”

If the producers of STC are true to their stated goal of creating something very close to the original Star Trek, then this is not going to *be* a “visual-effects[sic] laden show.”

320. MJ - August 9, 2012

@318. Why do I JUST KNOW that you had an 8-track as well? :-)

321. Michael Hall - August 9, 2012

@ 253 Pony Horton–

“Models are cool because we can hold them, display them, light them, and the WOW factor is big. . . But, properly-done, CG is more effective and allows far greater creative freedom.”

It’s a great source of amusement for me when some self-satisfied nerd will prattle on about. the shots of Coruscant in THE PHANTOM MENACE or the Enterprise and K-7 in “Trials and Tribbilations” as “poorly done CGI” when in fact they were actually done with models. For me the gold standard of comparisons is between the old and new versions of Battlestar Galactica. If you look at the fine model work done by John Dykstra back in 1979, compare it to the CGI effects put together by Gary Hutzel and his team thirty years later, and honestly think the old FX look more “convincing” or “realistic”–well, the best advice I could give you would to be fitted for a good seeing-eye dog.

“The problem is so many CG “artists” will do only the minimum amount of work required, and then wonder why the shots look “artificial.”

As someone whose poor, fledgeling efforts in CGI have been ripped to shreds without mercy by an established artiste or two, I can only sympathize, photorealism being the new Holy Grail for us mere mortals. :-)

322. MJ - August 9, 2012

Dwight Howard to the Lakers….YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

323. Red Dead Ryan - August 9, 2012

#318.

Well, thanks for proving me right! 3 million laserdisc players is miniscule compared to how many VHS players were in homes.

$49.95-60.00 a movie??? WOW!
That makes the TNG Remastered Blu Ray set a bargain in comparison!

And if the final new releases were lowered to “just” $39.95, then its no surprise the format went extinct.

#321.

Boy, its a good summer for the Lakers! Go Lakers! Go Steve Nash!

324. Red Dead Ryan - August 9, 2012

#320.

I thought the models of Deep Space Station K-7 and the Enterprise looked good. And the ships from the original “Star Wars” trilogy still look convincing and great after all these years.

325. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 9, 2012

322 dont forget VHS was also NOT a sell through home video model, It was a rental business model first and foremost . New releases were never priced to own with few exceptions for Disney Movies, and certain big blockbusters.
Most VHS tapes that were released didnt become priced to own until 9mths or a year after the rental window had started.

You balk at paying 49.99 for a laser disc, try paying 99.99 for VHS copy of Nightmare on Elm Street 4, or 89.99 for the Hand that Rocks the Cradle and not even in the OAR, but rather in FOOL Screen Pan and Scan. VHS was huge in homes because you could record from your tv.

It was a big deal when DVD came about and you had priced to own discs released day and date with Rental priced VHS counterparts.
And it was a huge thing when New Line Cinema tested releasing priced to own DVD before rental priced VHS, with Detroit Rock City putting it for sale on DVD a full 3 weeks before the VHS rentals hit the shelf.

Not really sure why Laser Disc and VHS were brought into the discussion here but just thought i would point out, that VHS wasnt a new release priced to own format.

in intrest of full disclosure of course there were a number of even 99.99 and 149.99 LD discs out there as well, but those were packed to the gills with special features and archives that many of which still have never been ported over to DVD or Bluray.
Also LD from the get go was marketed as a Film COLLECTORS or Film Buffs format

326. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch - August 9, 2012

I just cant get over still how incredbile the recreation of the end of Turn about Intruder looks,at the start of the video. said it early but great job guys, everything is spot on from the acting, to the music, visuals everything looks great and cant wait to see the full episode!

Perhaps Chris or someone else close to the production on here, do you or can you give an idea of the rate new episodes will be produced.

327. Red Dead Ryan - August 9, 2012

#324.

Thanks for the info. I barely recall how much VHS movies costed in the nineties since I was a kid back then, and the pricing didn’t really concern me since I wasn’t the one to buy the movies. I used to own a whole bunch of videos back in the day. Yeah, back in the early days, VHS movies were insanely expensive. They became more affordable in the late eighties and nineties, though, as more people collected them, especially the blockbusters like “Star Wars” and “Jurassic Park” as well as the Disney flicks.

When dvds first came out, it was so cool. It made movies more collectible, and dvds are far more durable and longer lasting than VHS. Plus they took up less room, and we got special features, as well as the movies in the intended aspect ratios.

In retrospect, I don’t know how we managed to tolerate VHS. Plus, it would have been very expensive and space-consuming to collect VHS episodes of the “Star Trek” series when they only came with two per tape.

328. Michael Hall - August 9, 2012

@ 323–

Oh, agreed. How could it be otherwise, when those models were built by the master, Greg Jein? My point was that fans tend to authoritatively spout off on these things without having any notion at all about how the effects were actually done.

@ 324–

I was quite the LD collector myself, for a time. The Criterion editions are especially wonderful, great treatment for classic films with lots of the supplemental bells and whistles for film buffs that only became standard on DVDs a decade and more later. I still have them, the deluxe Pioneer LD player is still part of my home theatre system, and I have no intension of parting with them any time soon.

329. Yancy - August 9, 2012

@ 324 You refer of course to the “Star Wars: Definitive Collection” which rang in at $149… Yup! God that was magnificent…

330. Jack - August 10, 2012

Wow.

They’re the same sets as Phase II, right? So why does the finished product look so much better? And I don’t mean that meanly. Honestly curious. Lighting? Camera work?

BTW, would TOS Spock end a sentence with a preposition? :)

331. northstar - August 10, 2012

They are not the same sets, from what I´ve read these are Farragut sets – and I do not think they look better, they just hit it with more light. In fact, they look pretty dead because there is not one animated screen or light.

332. Chris Doohan - August 10, 2012

326 Daniel Craig is MWB

We shoot the first episode in early October, with a release date of early next year (Feb-March?). Ultimately, we would like to do 2 episodes per year.

The sets are being built as we speak, which will include all the bells and whistles not seen in the teaser. We are even building the Jeffries Tube, which I am very excited about.

Again, I appreciate all the positive comments and suggestions. This is going to be so much fun!!

Chris

333. Jack Marshall - August 10, 2012

We share sets with Farragut. Both shows are produced under the Farragut Films banner. The sets were moved recently from the original Farragut Films studio to a nearly 10,000 square foot facility where we are in the process of building all the sets in the same configuration as the original sets at Desilu. Yeah, no blinkies yet, but as I said, we are still building.

It’s quite a site to see. We will be able to do everything done in TOS due to the fact the sets are laid out in exactly the same configuration. See the link below to see how the sets were laid out in the 60’s. This is exactly what how our shared sets are laid out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/retroweb/3911884841/

We are shooting one episode this year and hope to do two or more a year thereafter.

On another note, I do wish people would be nicer to each other in this forum. Conversation is great, but downright meanness is meaningless.

Jack Marshall

334. Red Shirt Diaries - August 10, 2012

@333. Agree about folks being nicer. I think that now that the primary instigator (DS) has removed himself, that there should be not be any more of this meanness issue here.

335. "The Captain's Neck Is Broken" - August 11, 2012

Chris Doohan is awesome!

336. Daniel Craig Is mY wookie Bitch - August 11, 2012

333 “We are shooting one episode this year and hope to do two or more a year thereafter.”
Great news cant wait

337. Daniel Craig Is my Wookie Bitch - August 11, 2012

332
“326 Daniel Craig is MWB

We shoot the first episode in early October, with a release date of early next year (Feb-March?). Ultimately, we would like to do 2 episodes per year.

The sets are being built as we speak, which will include all the bells and whistles not seen in the teaser. We are even building the Jeffries Tube, which I am very excited about.”

Awesome thanks for the answer, that will be very cool, 2 eps per a year, but even 1 a year is beyond awesome.

338. Shatoupee - August 11, 2012

Looks great! Great casting, too! Look forward to more of this series.

339. dmduncan - August 11, 2012

Vic is not bad as Kirk. I’ll be looking forward to seeing him in a complete episode. And the sense of authenticity that Chris Doohan brings to the venture is startling. When he speaks I hear classic Scotty.

340. Jack Marshall - August 11, 2012

I remember hearing Chris do the accent the first time. We were standing around on set joking around and he said something “in the voice” and everyone just kinda stopped dead and the studio fell silent.

I was amazed at how much he sounded like Jimmy. Even during the editing process, I’d get chills hearing him. It’s so cool to be working with him on this I can hardly stand it (love ya Chris!!!).

Someone earlier commented on the pinky ring on Dr. McCoy, recalling how De Kelley did the same. Seconds before we rolled camera we said, “Chuck! Put your wedding ring on your pinkie”.

Yeah, we know our TOS pretty well ;) LOL Thanks for noticing that detail and trust that no one is going to be as hard on us as we will be. It’s tough being a purist, but it will show in the end.

Oh, and as a purist – 4×3 baby!!!

Jack Marshall

I am, for those who don’t know, the “Supervising Producer” for Farragut Films. Farragut Films is the “Paramount” for Starship Farragut and Star Trek Continues. We share resources between the productions from sets and costumes to behind the scenes workers.

I believe 2013 is going to be a cool year for Star Trek, TOS style. I hope you’ll continue to follow us either here or on Facebook.

341. K-7 - August 11, 2012

Mr. Marshall, I am really looking forward to your new TOS episodes, but am still hoping you will consider releasing the episodes in both 4×3 and 16×9 aspect ratios. Just think about it — that is all I am saying.

342. Red Shirt Diaries - August 11, 2012

@341. Agreed. J. Marshall, please think about doing dual aspect ratios. You will get a much more positive response, while still maintaining your 4:3 ration for the harccore fans who insist upon that.

343. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 11, 2012

I agree, maybe release the 4:3 first to keep your artistic vision up front, then the 16:9 a few weeks after for those who want it? Appealing to a broader audience can’t be a bad thing.

344. MJ - August 11, 2012

@343. Great idea!

Jack, yea, think about going with the dual-release of both aspect ratios, but at Lewis suggested, do your high profile release of the 4:3 version first if that helps you to intellectually show you are sticking to the classic format.

Jack, I don’t think you realize how many fans would prefer to see this in 16 x 9. Would it really be so hard to release these all later (after the initial 4×3 release) in 16×9 aspect?

Please consider this! A broader audience could enjoy your hard work, and this would future proof it as well.

345. K-7 - August 11, 2012

Guys, great idea about releasing it in 4×3 first, then following up later with 16×9. Everybody wins in this scenario, and the production crew saves face by getting their preferred format out first.

346. Ex Slack - August 11, 2012

Does anyone know why in the heck are they doing this with the antiquated 4:3 aspect ratio? Huh?

347. Sam - August 11, 2012

Oriental Spock? Well, at least there is no Peter Kirk.

348. Jack Marshall - August 12, 2012

@346 – It’s been explained. However, once more, we’re trying to recreate the look of a classic TV show, not modernize it. If we were making an updated version of the show, sure, we’d go 16×9 – but this is about capturing the look and feel of the 60’s, not the 21st century. This is a tribute series – we aren’t trying to re-invent the wheel here.

Considering most of us involved are “antiquated”, I see no problem with this. And seeing as how EVERY series except ENT was in 4×3, I think we stand in good company.

I promise we will look into this further, but most certainly, our initial releases will always be in 4×3.

349. Cailin - August 13, 2012

@348 It’s nice to see comments from part of the show. I’m glad you may rethink the whole aspect thing because it is kinda distracting. I hope you guys get some professional direction for your full episode because the direction here was not great. A real writer would be good too. Keep up the otherwise good work tho.

350. K-7 - August 13, 2012

@349 “I’m glad you may rethink the whole aspect thing because it is kinda distracting.”

Agreed!

351. A14U - August 13, 2012

Yep, we should take all the thousands of TV shows made from the late ’40s on, and future-proof them by cropping them down to 16:9. Absolutely! LOL ;)

352. Daniel Craig Is My Wookie Bitch. - August 13, 2012

348,
Follow your artistic and creative vision, there is nothing wrong with 4×3, if thats the choice all of you behind the scenes prefer for your vision. MOST viewers wont care that it isnt 16×9. They will and should focus on the quality content and stories your all creating.

4×3 certainly didnt hurt the box office or acclaim the Artist recieved.

353. DiscoSpock - August 13, 2012

Although I admittedly was one of the biggest proponents of the 4×3 aspect ratio for this production when this article came out last week, after spending some time this weekend looking at the latest from Phase II, I must admit that the 16×9 format looks more compelling to me now that I have had a chance to reconsider it. So upon this further reflection, I would like to suggest to Jack Marshall that you at least examine releasing this later in 16×9 format.

Red Dead Ryan, K-7, MJ, Anthony, others, I would also like to sincerely apologize for my outbursts last week on this topic. What can I say? I had other stuff going on last week outside of this that effected my responses here. Sorry!

354. Lewis E. Kilgo - August 14, 2012

353: And such is life, for all of us, at one time or another.

355. Red Shirt Diaries - August 14, 2012

#353 Don’t fret over it, Disco Spock. We all have been there for sure.

Glad to see you are now supporting getting us access to this in the 4×3 aspect on STC that probably 90% of people in general would prefer. Kudos to you for making the switch on this issue!

A14U and DanielNameMuchTooLong — I bet that in time you guys will change your mind on this at some point in the future just as Disco Spock has done. You could learn something from his reconsideration here, me thinks.

356. K-7 - August 15, 2012

Apology accepted, DS. Thanks

357. MJ - August 15, 2012

Daniel Craig is my Wookie Bitch,

Here’s hoping you you change your mind like Disco Spock did and support the recommendation for the great STC crew to eventually release the episodes in 16 x 9 format..

358. Red Shirt Diaries - August 15, 2012

In #355 above, I meant to be referring to 16 x9. Here is my corrected partial sentence from the first paragraph:

“Glad to see you are now supporting getting us access to this in the 16×9 aspect……..”

Sorry for any confusion.

359. Michael Hall - August 15, 2012

Can’t really understand the contretemps and associated vitriol over aspect ratio. I prefer widewcreen myself (and spent a fair amount of time explaining to non-cineastes that there weren’t really “black bars” in the letterbox presentation laser discs I screened back in the day), but the decision to preserve TOS’ original format seems pretty reasonable for a production whose mission statement is to continue the program as it appeared on NBC. Jerry Finnerman among others was certainly able to demonstrate that indelible images can be created in that format, which in any case takes a backseat to little things like acting, production values, and story. So far, from what I’ve seen it seems like the STC producers have their priorities straight.

360. MJ - August 15, 2012

“contretemps”

Impressive. If your use of vocabulary were akin to movie aspect ratios, it would be at least a 16×9-sized aspect ratio! :-)

361. Xplodin_Nacelle - August 18, 2012

That final Ent shot is awesome!!! – proof that the TOS E would’ve looked good onscreen in the first three films

362. Lee James - August 18, 2012

Star Trek Continues looks absolutely fantastic! I’m particularly impressed by the cinematography and lighting. It looks more like TOS than TOS did! ;)

363. Starflight Attendant - August 18, 2012

Wow, what a great start! Finally, great production values and acting in a fan film. Can’t wait for a full episode from the Star Trek Continues group!

364. Lee James - August 20, 2012

I wonder if anyone will ever make a “TNG Continues” series? Now that, to people like me, would be VERY exciting! :)

365. el capitan - August 20, 2012

Has anybody mentioned that Uhura was not in the original epsisode?

366. Lee James - August 20, 2012

I would like to make a serious suggestion to anyone who may be reading this from either Star Trek Continues or Star Trek Phase II.

Individually these two shows are amazing, but how much more amazing would it be if we could MERGE BOTH SHOWS TOGETHER to create one ultimate production!?

Think of it: two technical teams working together. Double the skills and expertise. Double the quality. Double the input on any particular issue. All scripts could be written by one team then checked by the other team to create a more finely-crafted collaboration. Plus you’d have a single show with perhaps double the number of episodes, which would make it more compelling and there would be double the publicity.

I just see these two hugely talented production teams striving towards the same goal and think they naturally belong together. I also think that by currently having two different productions, they each kind of undermine the other, reducing the importance, significance, excitement, reputation and uniqueness of each other. Together, however, the result could become something greater than the sum of its parts. It could become the most phenomenal, unstoppable fan series! It could become, like, a real, legitimate TV show, possibly even considered part of the franchise with canon status. Two separate fan productions obviously never could claim this status each, but a unified one perhaps could.

Of course, the most obvious benefit to merging the two shows is that you’d end up with an absolutely phenominal first-class cast. The principal roles would be awarded to the performers deemed most suited to the role (some kind of fan vote seems most sensible). But any unique characters (e.g. Arex) could stay and perhaps a little re-casting could ensure most castmembers could retain a place onboard. I’m sure James Cawley himself agrees with the principle of making big sacrifices in the name of making a better show, as demonstrated by James’ relinquishing of his own role as captain.

The only genuine down-side to the idea of merging the two productions together are the beautiful sets. Some would have to get re-cycled, or possibly destroyed for a glorious destruction sequence!?

So, creators, PLEASE could these two different shows be merged into one at some point?

I would suggest it be done by using a parallel universe story to unite the two shows, thus validating all previous episodes made by both production companies. The episode could begin just like an episode of Phase II, with Cawley’s crew and Brian Gross as Kirk. But then at some point Vic Mignona (the other Kirk) could come aboard, initially treated with suspiscion and hostility, but soon it becomes apparent that he’s telling the truth (or his memory returns) and he’s from a parallel universe with other Enterprise. Then the crew find a way back to this other Enterprise, meet each other, and then one of the Enterprises is heavily damaged either through some battle with a common foe or one of the universes destabilising, resulting in the deaths of one of the Kirks, one of the Spocks, and everyone taking refuge aboard one of the Enterprises. Thus begins a new era!

367. spanish trek - August 21, 2012

Great initiative!!
But… using 4:3 ??
I think it’s not good idea!
When all screens are 16:9 and all cameras record in 16:9, it’s nonsense to do a work in 4:3.
I think the look of a classic TV show is recreated in same form if you use 16:9. Perhaps are you going to use film camera too?

368. K-7 - August 21, 2012

“When all screens are 16:9 and all cameras record in 16:9, it’s nonsense to do a work in 4:3.”

Well said. I think 90% have come to that conclusion now, and even the lead poster arguing for 4×3 (Disco Spock) has now come around to support 16×9.

If Disco Spock supports 16 x 9 now, that should give Daniel Craig and others pause to reconsider their untenable positions on the 4 x 3 aspect ratio for STC.

369. K-7 - August 21, 2012

@366 “Individually these two shows are amazing, but how much more amazing would it be if we could MERGE BOTH SHOWS TOGETHER to create one ultimate production!?”

That is a bad idea. The whole reason why these shows are all of sudden looking so good is because of the competition now between the crews to make a better fan product. “Monopolies” nearly always result in a less superior product as compared to the products that you get with competing products. That is a fact that cannot be debated.

370. Lee James - August 23, 2012

On the issue of aspect ratio, I agree with everyone! I think widescreen looks SO MUCH better than 4:3; it looks so much more natural and engaging and comfortable.

I feel so strongly about this that I once spent months designing a theoretical software system that transfers 4:3 TV shows into 16:9, or can even be used to make a 16:9 show even more widescreen, which I think looks even better. (I did all this with Star Trek: TNG in mind!) I don’t have the ability to build the software, only to design the concept.

I put a lot of work into my idea and I think it was pretty awesome! It uses about 10 different techniques in total to achieve what is, in my opinion, a pretty good result that is much preferable to either original 4:3 or cropped to 16:9. It’s a little like using a Panorama mode on certain TVs, only way more sophisticated. The main snag is it’s not a fully automated process and requires a certain amount of work by an operator. I had the idea in mind that with something like TNG, all the work could be done by fans. I mean, I’d happily do every episode myself if I had the time!

@369 K-7,

I would have thought the rule about “monopolies vs healthy competition” only applies to commercial companies who can’t really be bothered improving their product unless they’re under threat. Whereas these two TOS productions are made by fans out of sheer passion and enthusiasm, so I can’t see them creating anything less than their very best and I wouldn’t have thought competition would have really made any difference, other than to kind of make their production feel less special and put them on a downer.

371. Singapom - August 25, 2012

This is fantastic. I’d forgotten that, when the first Star Trek film came out, I was a bit disappointed that it wasn’t the same as the TV show I had loved as a small kid. This has reminded me how much that show meant to me then. Great job – I’ll be watching!

372. Oktoberfest - September 2, 2012

Wow! I’m totally blown away by this, right down to the sound, props, and costumes. I got chills watching Chris D, he’s perfect!

373. Scott Gammans - September 3, 2012

Can there be too many Star Trek fan productions? NO THERE CANNOT!

I echo Oktoberfest: I too am blown away by this. Clearly the Farragut Films crew has gone the extra parsec with “Star Trek Continues”. The production values, lighting, cinematography, visual effects and yes, even the *acting* are all top-notch. (A special hat tip to Chris Doohan, who is nothing less than the second coming of his father in the role of Scotty. I really felt like I was watching Jimmy Doohan somehow transported into a new body… Chris’ performance was THAT spot-on.)

Some people have been openly grousing that “Star Trek: Phase II” and “Star Trek Continues” are competing and that they should pool their resources instead. I say nuts to that–I like having a different viewpoint on the Star Trek universe, and besides, it’s obvious that the competition has raised the bar of quality for both productions (seriously, go check out the ST:II vignette!)

I can’t wait to see what STC does next!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.