Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fan-Made Star Trek Episode Available for Download

Posted by chrisd on from the better-than-nemesis dept.

Minnesota trekker writes "Two Minnesota fans of the original "Star Trek" series spent seven years, off and on, creating an all-new episode in the 1960s style using their own actors, sets and props. Behold, the U.S.S. Exeter (www.starshipexeter.com). The episode's look and feel is amazingly authentic. The story is inventive and the acting surprisingly good. The damn thing, dubbed "The Savage Empire," is actually watchable. The site gives lots of details on how the episode was created, and even more background is available on the Pioneer Press site."

13 of 627 comments (clear)

  1. 7 year production? by bytesmythe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They used their own actors, and it took them seven years? Can you see the people age visibly from one scene to the next? That can't be good for continuity. Suddenly the lead actor has gray hair and put on 20 pounds...

    Of course, that kind of thing still wouldn't drop it below the quality of most new shows that issue forth from the bowels of the major networks.

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
  2. Take that MPAA! by Telex4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    Then I noticed how long it took them to do it :-)

  3. The future of movies by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is unbelievably cool, not only for itself, but also as a proof of concept. With some experience and technology, perhaps regular groups of fans will one day shoot good movies in a couple of years. This should give MPAA a lot of food for thought - not only about copy protection but also about producing inferior movies like the Nemesis.

    Are there other projects like this on the web?

  4. Re:sounds like trouble by edwardd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Exeter is also the name of a Brittish warship.

  5. Re:Old-style klingons by B3ryllium · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  6. The Difference by yndrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can almost guarantee that this production, however amateur, is infinitely superior to any recent Paramount effort for one simple reason:

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

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

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

  7. Re:Old-style klingons by steveha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The new-style Klingons made their first appearance in the first theatre movie (Star Trek: The Motion Picture). Gene Roddenberry was asked why the Klingons looked different, and he explained that "they always looked that way".

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

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

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  8. Actually... by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Paramount is touchy about this stuff. I don't see any evidence the producers got permission -- in fact they claim copyright on the credits page. Permission is easier to get before than after. There are some trademark issues here, too, I think.

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

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

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

    1. Re:Actually... by RoundTop-VJAS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok... time for me to dredge up my business law class here...

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      RoundTop

  9. 4:3 vs. 16:9 by leomekenkamp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The one thing I absolutely *loved* about TOS (The Original Series) was that they had 16:9 displays everywhere. This was ofcourse years before anyone in the electric biz started talking about this format for television sets.
    Such a shame that feature is missing, and they have the boring old 4:3 display layout. Maybe NCC-1701 was more advanced than any of it's sister ships? It was Starfleets flagship ...

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
  10. Bravo!! by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting


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

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

    I've so far viewed the trailer. If you think that was easy or cheap to make, guess again. Props, costumes, and sets all add up real quick. These people spent a lot of money on this project. Perhaps the only area they are lacking on that keeps this thing from being mistakeable for one of the original episodes is the lighting. Lighting is what usually seperates amateur from professional looking movies. If you go back and look at the lighting on the old star trek shows, you'll see it's pretty dynamic. For simplicity's sake, these people used overhead lights like you see in soap operas. Dead easy to arrange, but gives shadows on eyes unless you have fill-lights.
    --
    $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
  11. Re:sounds like trouble by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm replying to my own post because nobody around here seems to know nautical acronyms/abbreviations.

    Let's start with the easy ones:

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

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

    CC - cruiser (like the HMS Exeter)

    Other examples include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. What I would do is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Make a whole file of the episode, send it to Paramount and ask them to fund "Star Trek: The lost episodes" and get Paramount on board for funds, these guys did it CHEAP, and produce more of the same based upon fan fiction Paramount has grabbed off the net. Imagine 100 shows more, produced at , say, 500,000 dollars apice , that could net a bunch of money for Paramount and add to the Trek Saga! This way everyone could profit with nary a beowulf cluster to be found! The actors would not get tons of money, but perhpas they would get recognition to further their careers. They would get paid and when they pinched the pennies correctly, winners all around! What say you?