We're In a Golden Age of Star Trek Webseries Right Now

New submitter DakotaSmith writes: io9 has an article explaining why We're Living In The Golden Age Of Star Trek Webseries Right Now. If you're a true geek, you probably already know about Star Trek Continues and Star Trek: Phase II. (If you're a true geek and you don't know about them, run — do not walk, run — to watch "Lolani." Your brain— and more importantly, your heart — will love you for the rest of your life.)

But there's more to it than that. A lot more. How about the years'-long wait for Act IV of Starship Exeter : "The Tressaurian Intersection"? Or Yorktown: "A Time to Heal" — an attempt to resurrect an aborted fan film from 1978 starring George Takei? For fans of old-school Star Trek (the ones who pre-date "Trekker" and wear "Trekkie" as a badge of honor), not since 1969 has there been a better time to watch Star Trek: The Original Series.

(Oh, and there's plenty content out there for you "Trekkers" and NextGen-era fans. It all varies in quality, but it doesn't take much effort to find them. This is truly a Golden Age. Recognize it and enjoy it while it lasts.)

Comments

Good material, but dark

[Anonymous Coward]

There is some good material out there, but it tends to be darker and more action-y than the original Trek. For example, the Lolani episode the original post mentions has a plot which revolves around the Federation supporting slavery, which seems way out of line with the original series. In fact, all the Continues episodes have been dark, dealing a lot with death or dark parallel universe or slavery, etc.

Perhaps this is Trek for a modern age, a more cynical age, but it leaves me feeling cold. I liked the opitimism of the original series. They did some dark stuff, but on the whole it was a brighter vision of the future. I miss that.

THIS is a "golden age"? Yikes.

[realmolo]

I'm sorry, the fan-made "Star Trek" stuff is terrible, because the actors are terrible. It's as simple as that. They get pretty much everything right, otherwise, but without decent actors, it doesn't matter. I mean, the acting is high-school-level bad.

Good actors are rare. It's an ability you're born with, I think. You have to have "presence", and the right voice, and the right mannerisms...none of the actors on these shows have ANY of that.

Re:THIS is a "golden age"? Yikes.

[deodiaus2]

Shatner was a lousy actor, egotist, and greedy bastard who would steal smaller actors lines, according to Takei, Doohan, and others. I didn't realize this until I was 17. I re-watched my favorite episode, "City on the Edge of Forever" when I just realized how campy and overdone was his acting style. Stuff that appealed to me when I was 14 just fell out of favor later on in life.

Re:THIS is a "golden age"? Yikes.

[AmiMoJo]

The guy who plays Kirk in Continues is a better Shatner than Shatner is. He has all the mannerisms and speech patterns down perfectly. I could believe it was the same character, the same person. Only, he's actually slightly better, slightly less camp and with a more expressive face.

Lies, damn lies and half-truths.

[wbr1]

We are not in a golden age, but a dilithuim age. It is not sluggish and gilded, but moving a warp speed! Where is it moving.. well, sensors are down right now.

Re:Lies, damn lies and half-truths.

[Will.Woodhull]

I'm holding out for the gold-pressed latinum age.

I remember that TOS was so cool because it was showing what the world could be like if we somehow were able to get past the major crises of that day. Which were (in descending order of impact on a white middle class male teen): 1) women entrusted with chain of command positions; 2) tolerance of the rights of people who did not look like everyone in my home town; 3) resolving major disagreements with foreigners without throwing nukes around.

How could Star Trek be relevant today like it was back then? I can't imagine a Star Trek episode with Spock and Kirk, or even Data and Picard, dealing rationally with terrorism.

TOS and TNG were fantastically great myths born of that age. But that age is now in our history, and today's problems of terrorism, ecological brinksmanship, and the 99% vs the 1% do not lend themselves to the same kind of myth making.

Ugh, "Lolani'?

[mrsam]

Oh geeeee..... The only good thing about "Lolani" is that it is a perfect remake of a classically terrible, awful, ST:TOS episode. It's a perfect homage to "Spock's Brain", and "Savage Curtain".

So from that viewpoint, it's a great episode. And I really enjoyed watching it, but only for its artistic value of a faithful recreation of a botched ST:TOS time filler. Really, I'll take "Fairest Of Them All", or even "Pilgrim of Eternity", over "Lolani", any time. And I do appreciate seeing The Incredible Hulk himself, in full-body green makeup; but it can't make up for the awfulness of the rest of the episode.

As a proud Trekkie!

[stox]

The attention to detail in Star Trek Continues is remarkable. The acting can be a bit stilted, but maybe you all have forgotten the first season of TOS. It will be more difficult for STC due to the changing cast. Even then, I think the roles will mature and develop more fully.

And no, it is NOT a Golden Age, it is just the beginning!

The dissenting voice,

[westlake]

The geek whines that Hollywood produces nothing but remakes and sequels; but when given the chance to show us what he can do on his own, what do we get?

Just watched Lolani...

[plazman30]

It was actually quite good. The script was well written and the attention to detail was top notch. The acting was kind of hit or miss at times. Though seeing Lou Ferrigno and Erin Grey again was definitely nostalgic. I think it's worth watching.

The novel universe is even better

[The Good Reverend]

For the last decade or so, the Trek novel universe has been well-maintained, followed its own continuity, and has featured a lot of very good stories (and a few bad ones, but so it goes with all things Star Trek). If you're a fan that's looking to continue the stories and feel of Star Trek now that it's off the air, look at the novels (and check out http://www.thetrekcollective.c... for a guide to where to start).

Kirk wears blue suede shoes

[HatofPig]

I've loved, and have been following Star Trek fan films since the second episode of New Voyages, over a decade ago. Yes, of course the acting is amateur. If you can't handle them, don't watch them. Subbie didn't even mention Hidden Frontier, which ran for 7 seasons! Also left out Of Gods and Men! I watched part one of a Star Trek: Aurora two-parter last week -- it was great, but a Harry Mudd episode so it was rather silly.

But it's so interesting how this one franchise, out of them all, has so many simultaneous fan productions. It's like, in the 60s, when all the traditional ideologies and authorities were being torn down there was a vacuum introduced into the Western psyche. And then some random TV show with an idealistic premise was sucked in to fill the void. Now, like schismatic sects of a religion, each fan film does Star Trek the "right" way, in it's creators own interpretation. Lots of gay characters in many fan films, for instance, something real Star Trek almost never touched.

If you would only ever watch one episode, watch Fairest of Them All, the "part two" to Mirror, Mirror.

Re:Kirk wears blue suede shoes

[Dr. Evil]

..."traditional ideologies and authorities were being torn down there "

They were experimental and short-lived ideologies that were torn down. 20 years earlier it was war era, 30 : depression, 40: hedonism, 50: another war then the industrial revolution and agrarian society.

The nuclear family, single income post-industrial home was an ideal which nobody liked. Feminism cites it a lot, but I think it's only because boomers own the bookshelves, the experiences of their mothers is strong and the boomers came with waves of universities custom built for them. The generation before was lucky to get highschool, meanwhile the boomers were publishing papers, and lots of crappy profs were being brought in with tenure (I know because they were still around in the 90s...)

Communications were revolutionizing our perceptions of race, while war made the roles of gender and the meaning of race more complex. Rodenbery and Lucile Ball both had optimistic visions, which was cool and I think added to the future.

Luceille Ball was smart and powerful and saw a show that fit her ideals. I don't think Trek was at all random and the establishment being overthrown wasn't very established. Trek's influence was minimal, but it predicted the future.... I mean, in terms of multiculturalism and gender. Sulu was on the bridge when the Green Hornet was dealing with Bruce Lee being "too Asian" for a lead role. It's hard to believe how racist people were.

I guess if those are the traditional values you mean, then I agree, they were being slowly eroded. But Trek wasn't wildly successful (at first) and certainly didn't replace a void in the Western psyche. It was given a chance by an idealist, and was successful years later in re-runs.

Re:LOL!

[NotDrWho]

A Trekker, a Trekkie, and a Vulcan walk into a bar.

"Wow, that's a pretty girl over there," says the Trekkie.

"I calculate her body mass at approximately 45 Kg, with an estimated distance from us of 5.35 meters. I also find her behavior most illogical and perplexing, I've therefore determined that it is logical for us to avoid her," another responds.

"And I really have to get back to Vulcan," responds the third.