“Star Trek Continues”: Fan-made episodes carry on the five-year mission | Hacker News Reader

“Star Trek Continues”: Fan-made episodes carry on the five-year mission

slate.com

91 pointsmorphics45 comments

Good news, I'd also very much love to see a new series based on the "second" incarnation of Star Trek (TNG/Voyager/DS9), which for me is "the real Star Trek".

I could never really suspend my disbelief with the 1st series...

I think TNG pretty much accomplished whatever it was they set out to do. Then they started making action adventure movies.

I'd like to see whole different takes on the genre. Too bad star trek is so iconic, it uses up a lot of the air.

I thought Firefly was a pretty good attempt, shame it didn't take off.

It was OK. I don't think it was better than TNG when it first came out.

Better or not is a personal preference. But the world it describes (much closer to our time, which also affects the technology), the kind of protagonists (regular folk, not associated with an all-mighty quasi-military governmental structure), the action (more personal, less "submarine in space"), and the issues (more political, and in general more grown-up, than Star Trek) do make it better for some viewers. (Disclaimer: myself included.)

It didn't take off because it didn't gather enough audience. Most people have a prejudice against SciFi. It took me several months to convince my girlfriend to watch Firefly and more than a year for BSG, but in the end she loved them both very much.

I'm hoping that the mass appeal of BSG (especially now that it has a second life on Netflix) and the accessibility of the new Star Trek movies will pave the way for more space opera on TV.

> It didn't take off because it didn't gather enough audience.

Which of course had nothing to do with the network showing a series of shows written with developments carrying through multiple episodes out of order.

I've heard it described as the differences between the Gene Roddenberry universe and the Rick Berman universe. Supposedly, Roddenberry took a backseat after TNG season 2, and there are differences in camerawork, acting, and storylines between the first 2 seasons & the latter 5.

Completely agree. As a guy living along in college some of the best nights would be watching Start Trek TNG. Just the opening was incredible. It made me feel like it really was the future.

Check Star Trek : Hidden Frontier. they are very old in this, and it's obvious that they do all with low budget, but they made seven seassons!!! And It get improving and getting more interesting in each seasson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Hidden_Frontier

I'm really curious to know how this ties in to Star Trek New Voyages... are they alternate timelines, or are they overlapping?

http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/

Watched it last week, squeeling with delight. Thought it was awesome, really captured the feel of the original.

I was only disappointed when, 7 days later, there wasn't a new episode.

Anyone know what release frequency they're aiming at?

It's good! Starring Grant Imahara from Mythbusters as Sulu.

It's good, I will bookmark it. This fan-films are a "old stuff" now. I helped a bit with one some time ago, making some 3d stuff for Star Trek Origins.

If you like this, you will love Star Trek Phase II http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ The first chapters two aren't very good, but they make a steady progress improving it, and actually have a great quality in all senses.

http://www.startrekcontinues.com/episodes/#.UbHvxVJfI1I

I had a lot of fun watching this. It is true to the original spirit of the series. I look forward to the next episode.

Watched a few minutes and decided it's worth bookmarking.

Maybe it can wash out the awful taste in my after watching "Into Darkness".

I have to wonder about the IP issues. I didn't see anything on their site regarding what will stop CBS from going after them.

Why didn't you like Into Darkness?

Maybe because it was too fun and watchable? The Onion review of the previous Star Trek movie feels perfect:

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-fi...;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

Red Letter Media's take on "Into Darkness". Yes, even as an action flick it sucks.

Worth noting he enjoyed the first one. I largely agree with his review of the first one. In my opinion, the reboot captures effectively none of the magic of the original series, but since it's just being its own thing, it works out OK in the end, far better than an attempt to straddle the action adventure with the original Star Trek story aesthetic. I have no opinion about the second since I haven't seen it.

87% on Rotten Tomatoes makes it hard to argue that "it sucks" is an empirical, indisputable conclusion...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

I guess reasonable people can disagree.

Maybe it falls apart if you look at it too closely or from a particular critical angle, but I would expect it to hold together than most broad-audience action pictures.

...maybe because it was overblown and nonsensical. I don't mind watching mindless action in a Fast and the Furious movie, but if you're going to make a film that attempts to tell a "story" with people we're supposed to care about...it would be helpful if there was a story and characters we can care about.

It felt very derivative. It didn't really immerse you into the story that you would forget you were there.

Exactly. I was looking at the time every ten minutes, waiting for the lameness to end.

I liked it until I thought about it later. But while I was watching it I really really enjoyed it.

Afterwards, I thought about it as a story and it didn't make much sense.

I'm also still trying to figure out how Kirk is a captain of a star ship right out of the academy in a way that is plausible and doesn't require an actual antigravity machine to suspend my disbelief.

Farragut's first command was at age 12. He brought a captured British ship to port.

Because of all the stupid stuff in it?

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-50892...

> Look, I know Star Trek is science fiction, but hasn’t Trek always at least nominally tried to get science right?

Hmm, maybe a little bit. At least not as bad as into darkness.

It went out of its way to tie itself to Wrath of Khan, which only served to constantly remind me how much worse Into Darkness is as a movie than Wrath of Khan.

(spoilers) It was absolutely awful. So many plot holes, so many abjectly stupid decisions by supposed geniuses, so much misuse of the classic Kirk/Spock relationship as though it exists at that point in the alternate timeline, and the ultimate move in bad taste... having Spock emotionally yell out "Kahn!".

I had countless moments in that film where I was snapped out of moment of watching a movie and checking my phone to see what time it was. Closest I've ever come to walking out of a scifi movie. Near the end of the film, I was desperately hoping that Kahn would kill them all.

Some really great explosions, though. Jerry Bruckheimer would be proud to produce such a fiasco. I expected better of Abrams.

    © Copyright 2012 Farragut Films, Dracogen Strategic Investments 
    and Vic Mignogna
    
    Star Trek®, Star Trek: The Next Generation®, 
    Star Trek: Deep Space Nine®, Star Trek: Voyager®, Star Trek 
    Enterprise® and all associated marks and characters are registered 
    trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All rights reserved. The use of 
    anything related to "Star Trek" on any of these web sites is not 
    meant to be an infringement on CBS Studios Inc. property rights 
    to "Star Trek."

It's just like the standard youtube uploaders' disclaimer - "no copyright infringement intended." I wonder where this started... why do so many people believe copyright infringement is only wrong or enforceable if you really meant to steal it?

It makes sense if you realize those statements are (obviously) not written by lawyers to prevent legal challenges, but by Internet users to prevent annoying comments by other Internet users.

Although for what it's worth intentional copyright infringement is legally worse.

Because mens rea is required for a criminal (felony) copyright infringement. A civil case could still be brought for damages, but a federal prosecutor has to prove the violator did it intentionally. http://books.google.com/books?id=Mw5a7mL8XYAC&lpg=PA1183&ots...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The very fact of deliberately making copies for financial gain is mens rea enough for copyright infringement. However, that is irrelevant here, since the issue is not copyright infringement but trademark infringement.

Paramount has generally ignored (or blessed) fanfiction videos and literature with regards to Star Trek (but the same cannot be said for video games).

Unless they put ads on the videos, I don't think a YouTube post counts as financial gain.

Read it again. It's no trademark infringement intended, here is a list of trademarks and who owns them. That is a valid thing to do; consumers can't get confused about mark ownership if you explicitly tell them you're only using the mark as a description and you are not official.

Because it's not copyright infringement. Copyright applies to the content (i.e., DVDs, videos, or even simply clips of larger videos). Fanfiction is not (usually) copyright infringement because ideas can't be copyrighted, only the distinct expression of the idea can. (Without going down the rabbit hole, Captain Kirk is an idea, his portrayal in any particular tv show or movie would be the expression of that idea).

The video is disclaiming trademark infringement, which is not a crime.

My understanding is that CBS and Paramount have given explicit permission to make fan-produced Star Trek content as long as it's non-commercial. I assume the agreement includes having to include the copyright/trademark disclaimer as well.

I watched this the other week and other than some rough moments attributable to a new cast, I have to say, it really does pick right up where the TOS left off. The lighting, the sets, the music -- all are just like the original.

growing up, i liked startrek as vision of the future

i can't follow this kind of fetishising of an outdated vision

  fetishising of an outdated vision

I think it makes sense. Still it is more interesting than just a kind of future-in-the-past exercise.

Very cool! Thanks for sharing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com