I've seen a few fan films over the years, and while I could never flaw their enthusiasm or the technical excellence with which they recreate (and exceed!) Star Trek's vintage production, I've always felt very let down by the acting and direction in them. In this specific regard, past examples I've seen have resembled mediocre amateur theatre—fine if your family member or significant other is up there on stage but difficult to watch for almost anyone else. Despite reading and hearing some positive things about Star Trek Continues, I was honestly expecting more of the same, and was not expecting to actually make it through more than a couple of acts. How wrong I was.
First, though, the obvious: the show is an extremely high-fidelity recreation of Star Trek. I was deeply impressed not only by the quality of the sets but the number: Farragut Films has built at least sections of most of the show's interior sets (the engineering room being the most notable absence). Some limitation in camera angles makes me think that these sets are not as complete as the originals were, but it is nevertheless a stunning achievement. The costumes and props are also extremely faithful replicas, and are probably built to an even higher standard than the originals (the flaws in which are really sticking out to me now that I'm seeing them on Blu-Ray). The soundscape is faithful too: "Pilgrim of Eternity" seamlessly blends its original musical cues with familiar stock music and sound effects from the series. The CG special effects look to me just like they come from the recent Star Trek remasters. I would rate this part of the production as perfect if not for one wobbly corridor wall, a quibble I have with the lighting, and one issue of focus. The problem with the wall is self-explanatory. The problem with the lighting is that although the sets are lit perfectly authentically, the lighting on the cast is too high-contrast; it should be a lot more even. I don't remember seeing shadows like that except in "The Enemy Within"! And as to focus, I'll come to that later.
To me though, the real genius in this fakery is in more intangible areas: the direction, cinematography, and editing. This show is put together just like a 1960s Star Trek episode: camera angles, camera movement, composition, and cuts are all exactly where they should be. The fidelity is astonishing.
And... these people can act! I found almost all of the performances really impressive. I found Larry Nemecek, Grant Imahara, and Kim Stinger completely convincing in their roles as McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura respectively. I thought that Todd Haberkorn struggled with Spock a little bit; but then, Star Trek's Vulcan characters are a really difficult bunch to play. Other than Leonard Nimoy, I think only Mark Lenard and Kirsty Alley really got it right, and Haberkorn's interpretation is certainly on par with other professional performances on the various Star Trek series and movies over the years. The stand-out performances to me were Christopher Doohan's Scotty, Vic Mignogna's Kirk, and Michael Forest guest-starring as Apollo.
Doohan plays his father's signature role with tremendous affection and warmth and seemed to me entirely comfortable and natural in it. The familiarity of his voice and some of his facial expressions certainly help recall Doohan Sr's original interpretation of the character. Mignogna somehow manages to recall Shatner's Kirk at least as vividly, and without a head start from his genes. Mignogna incorporates so much of Shatner's body language, expressions, and gestures that I felt he was continually at risk of falling into pastiche; it was like watching a tightrope walker. In the end, I never thought he fell; his performance really was his own, but at the same time managed to remind me continually of the original inspiration of his character. As for Michael Forest, I was presently surprised by the sheer presence he brought to his role, in particular the menace that he conveyed in his confrontation with Kirk.
The only cast member who didn't work for me was Michele Specht as Dr Elise McKennah. I thought there was some kind of self-consciousness at work that interfered with bringing the character to life. In fact, this was the one performance in "Pilgrim of Eternity" that reminded me of why I've been so dissatisfied with other fan productions in the past. Also, to be truly authentic to the 1960s Star Trek, she should have been shot in much softer focus. For better or worse, this was really how they shot their actresses.
I wasn't overly engaged by the story, but the characters were written right, both in what they had to say and how they said it. And the theme it explores--the extent to which a person can change their essential nature--is pure Star Trek. JJ Abrams could take note. If anything, it was maybe a little too ambitious, incorporating a late twist in the tale that probable didn't really need to be there (and seemed to come straight from Monsters Inc anyway).
I found the first five minutes of "Pilgrim of Eternity" jarring as I settled into watching new actors play familiar parts, but as soon as I let that go, I had a great time with it. I was deeply impressed by the technical excellence, and pleasantly surprised and impressed by the performances. I look forward to more from Farragut Films.
First, though, the obvious: the show is an extremely high-fidelity recreation of Star Trek. I was deeply impressed not only by the quality of the sets but the number: Farragut Films has built at least sections of most of the show's interior sets (the engineering room being the most notable absence). Some limitation in camera angles makes me think that these sets are not as complete as the originals were, but it is nevertheless a stunning achievement. The costumes and props are also extremely faithful replicas, and are probably built to an even higher standard than the originals (the flaws in which are really sticking out to me now that I'm seeing them on Blu-Ray). The soundscape is faithful too: "Pilgrim of Eternity" seamlessly blends its original musical cues with familiar stock music and sound effects from the series. The CG special effects look to me just like they come from the recent Star Trek remasters. I would rate this part of the production as perfect if not for one wobbly corridor wall, a quibble I have with the lighting, and one issue of focus. The problem with the wall is self-explanatory. The problem with the lighting is that although the sets are lit perfectly authentically, the lighting on the cast is too high-contrast; it should be a lot more even. I don't remember seeing shadows like that except in "The Enemy Within"! And as to focus, I'll come to that later.
To me though, the real genius in this fakery is in more intangible areas: the direction, cinematography, and editing. This show is put together just like a 1960s Star Trek episode: camera angles, camera movement, composition, and cuts are all exactly where they should be. The fidelity is astonishing.
And... these people can act! I found almost all of the performances really impressive. I found Larry Nemecek, Grant Imahara, and Kim Stinger completely convincing in their roles as McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura respectively. I thought that Todd Haberkorn struggled with Spock a little bit; but then, Star Trek's Vulcan characters are a really difficult bunch to play. Other than Leonard Nimoy, I think only Mark Lenard and Kirsty Alley really got it right, and Haberkorn's interpretation is certainly on par with other professional performances on the various Star Trek series and movies over the years. The stand-out performances to me were Christopher Doohan's Scotty, Vic Mignogna's Kirk, and Michael Forest guest-starring as Apollo.
Doohan plays his father's signature role with tremendous affection and warmth and seemed to me entirely comfortable and natural in it. The familiarity of his voice and some of his facial expressions certainly help recall Doohan Sr's original interpretation of the character. Mignogna somehow manages to recall Shatner's Kirk at least as vividly, and without a head start from his genes. Mignogna incorporates so much of Shatner's body language, expressions, and gestures that I felt he was continually at risk of falling into pastiche; it was like watching a tightrope walker. In the end, I never thought he fell; his performance really was his own, but at the same time managed to remind me continually of the original inspiration of his character. As for Michael Forest, I was presently surprised by the sheer presence he brought to his role, in particular the menace that he conveyed in his confrontation with Kirk.
The only cast member who didn't work for me was Michele Specht as Dr Elise McKennah. I thought there was some kind of self-consciousness at work that interfered with bringing the character to life. In fact, this was the one performance in "Pilgrim of Eternity" that reminded me of why I've been so dissatisfied with other fan productions in the past. Also, to be truly authentic to the 1960s Star Trek, she should have been shot in much softer focus. For better or worse, this was really how they shot their actresses.
I wasn't overly engaged by the story, but the characters were written right, both in what they had to say and how they said it. And the theme it explores--the extent to which a person can change their essential nature--is pure Star Trek. JJ Abrams could take note. If anything, it was maybe a little too ambitious, incorporating a late twist in the tale that probable didn't really need to be there (and seemed to come straight from Monsters Inc anyway).
I found the first five minutes of "Pilgrim of Eternity" jarring as I settled into watching new actors play familiar parts, but as soon as I let that go, I had a great time with it. I was deeply impressed by the technical excellence, and pleasantly surprised and impressed by the performances. I look forward to more from Farragut Films.
