Axanar Production Log #1

[EVOXSNES]

The first in a series of Axanar Production Log videos that will chronicle the progress of the production from concept to the finished film of Axanar.

In this inaugural episode, Alec Peters, the executive producer of Axanar, and Robert Meyer Burnett, the editor of Axanar, discuss this week's state of the Axa-union, including a bit of history on how the new studio was secured, updates on the DVD and Blu-ray of Prelude to Axanar, and much more!

[Picard]

I made it to minunte 2. I hope that the movie will have better camera work than this. I'm glad to see that Alec Peters ''beefed'' up a bit. In the original ''prelude to Axanar'' video he really looked like the biggest nerd appearing to weight 50 pounds wet, not really ''Starfleet Hero'' meterial but more like the king of person who would wet his bed after Worf gave him a mean look. He's getting a free ride to a role he would probably never have been cast for - I'm just hoping he'll put some effort in order to look the part.

I contributed to the project last year, it has shown promise and I really look forward to it.

[Shroombuck]

Ghey.

[EVOXSNES]

This wont be a blockbuster but its coming out at a time when barely anyone give a rats arse about Star Trek and where pretty soon, Star Wars will eclipse it. A realistic expectation for the movie is somewhere in the vicinity of $600,000 which is the amount raised by only 8,000 people.

[Picard]

This wont be a blockbuster but its coming out at a time when barely anyone give a rats arse about Star Trek and where pretty soon, Star Wars will eclipse it. A realistic expectation for the movie is somewhere in the vicinity of $600,000 which is the amount raised by only 8,000 people.

I think the problem with Star Trek nowdays is that they are trying to make it a blockbuster. Forcing a formula that is in many ways completely incompatible with what Star Trek is. They are loosing their hard core base. Star Wars can afford to be the high pace special effect action movie because the story behind it is just so damn good.

Star Trek is supposed to be about the true potential of the human race in all it's aspects. It should appeal to an audience with some intelligence. I think this was recognized in Prelute to Axanar, I honestly have high hopes for it. I think we might be surprised.

[Janeway]

This wont be a blockbuster but its coming out at a time when barely anyone give a rats arse about Star Trek and where pretty soon, Star Wars will eclipse it. A realistic expectation for the movie is somewhere in the vicinity of $600,000 which is the amount raised by only 8,000 people.

I think the problem with Star Trek nowdays is that they are trying to make it a blockbuster. Forcing a formula that is in many ways completely incompatible with what Star Trek is. They are loosing their hard core base. Star Wars can afford to be the high pace special effect action movie because the story behind it is just so damn good.

Star Trek is supposed to be about the true potential of the human race in all it's aspects. It should appeal to an audience with some intelligence. I think this was recognized in Prelute to Axanar, I honestly have high hopes for it. I think we might be surprised.

Why can't it do both? I obviously dislike quite a number of things they have done in the new reality they have created but at the same time there are a number of things I do like.

For example, I like how the new NCC-1701 looks and while I like its bridge and interiors I really dislike its Engineering though Into Darkness was a little better on that one. The original Star Trek was limited by its time. And I think we can all agree that the costuming of the newer Trek is far better than TOS ever was.

With that said, Into Darkness and its predecessor do follow in someway the same path as normal Trek. They relate to their time. The Federation suffers a devastating attack and loses Vulcan or the terrorist attack in London. We pretty much witness the Federation's 9/11 and the aftermath of that. The Federation of Into Darkness is more "real." They aren't just good and they aren't just evil; they act as one would in real life. We of course saw some of this in DS9 but real Trek was never like that: it was about sticking to principles which is an honorable thing that we should all strive for but in reality principles are all well and good until you are back into a corner.

In the end however, modern Trek could do with more intellect.

They could also do away with that slipstream like warp for something more like classic Trek. Not this whole "we can't shoot you at warp or in anyway interdict you."

Anyways, I'm looking forward to Axanar. It definitely felt like "real Trek" and I was shocked at the quality of Prelude. It by far better than the one Tim Russ is doing from what I've seen.

[Picard]

I don't hate the new Star Trek but there is just something missing. This is in line with most recent big budget movies. The pace is too fast and you don't have time to appreciate a scene. It's hard for me to put my finger on it.

The Captain walking on the bridge used to mean something, you could feel a powerful presence. JJ Abrams Trek can't duplicate that, it feels more like a joke than anything else with too much action and a witty comment here and there. Most movies are like that nowdays - very fast pace and action packed and no depth whatsoever - this is what sells, but in the long run it will be Hollywood undoing. Yet when I look at the best movies ever made, they all took time to establish character presence. Think of a Clint Eastwood movie.

A Star Trek movie where you get the feel that any Ensign could be promoted to Fleet Admiral in the heat of the action irritates me. It feels like there is no order, or structure - officers are cowboys. This is the complete opposite of Starfleet.

[Costello]

I don't hate the new Star Trek but there is just something missing. This is in line with most recent big budget movies. The pace is too fast and you don't have time to appreciate a scene. It's hard for me to put my finger on it.

The Captain walking on the bridge used to mean something, you could feel a powerful presence. JJ Abrams Trek can't duplicate that, it feels more like a joke than anything else with too much action and a witty comment here and there. Most movies are like that nowdays - very fast pace and action packed and no depth whatsoever - this is what sells, but in the long run it will be Hollywood undoing. Yet when I look at the best movies ever made, they all took time to establish character presence. Think of a Clint Eastwood movie.

A Star Trek movie where you get the feel that any Ensign could be promoted to Fleet Admiral in the heat of the action irritates me. It feels like there is no order, or structure - officers are cowboys. This is the complete opposite of Starfleet.

Attention span. Open up an IP to mass-market and all of a sudden there is a need to keep people entertained. This results in action prioritised over narrative and character development.

[Shroombuck]

They should never have gone into the pre-TOS era. They should have delved into the future after Nemesis instead. It's an effort to rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise, but it has been horribly misjudged. Star Trek is nothing more than a space-western adventure story with a utopian take on society. Star Wars on the other hand, is an epic space opera that was inspired by works such as Beowulf and King Arthur and their mythological backgrounds. Star Trek is based on peace, whilst Star Wars is based on conflict. The whole underlying storyline is much more elaborate than those of Star Trek. I have always been a massive fan of Star Wars, especially the book-storyline before Episode I.

[Alexraptor]

Honestly Star Trek just isn't about flashy phasers and torpedoes flying everywhere and action.
The best episodes are the ones with very intense drama and interaction between characters, not the ones where the most ships blow up.

Some of the more memorable episodes Ive watched:

DS9: Duet
DS9: In the pale moonlight.
TNG: The Drumhead
TNG: Chain of Command Pt 1 & 2
Voy: The Chute