On the Set of "Inalienable":
In 2004, I blogged about what it was like to attend The Night Before
, a pre-Oscars party at the Beverly Hills Hotel, and a year later I updated it here
. Yesterday, I sent to Aspen the revised manuscript for Constitutional Law: Cases in Context
, a new constitutional law casebook I have been working on for the past year. Today, I am at Riverfront Stages
in Sylmar California, just north of LA, for the filming of "Inalienable
," and independent sci-fi film that culminates in a hearing in federal district court. The script was written by Walter Koenig
who played Pavel Chekov on the original Star Trek. On his website, he lists the principal actors and describes the plot:
Still guilt-ridden over the accident that took his family's lives, Eric Norris discovers that his body is host to a parasite from another world. Except, it is more than a parasite: it carries his DNA. Is this his new son or — as the government believes — a threat to mankind?
I will be playing an assistant prosecutor sitting at counsel table with main prosecutor played by Marina Sirtis
, who played Counselor Deanna Troi
on Star Trek Next Generation
As I am live blogging this, the crew is setting up a shot for a scene between Walter Koenig and Richard Hatch
of Battlestar Galactica
. They are both being
mic'd in the room where the video monitors are, along with the food for the crew. After some problems with the mike they are now rehearsing a scene that takes place in the bathroom. We're watching the scene on a monitor. It's a confrontation between the two principal protagonists that takes place early in the film. We can see the monitor of the bathroom but cannot hear the sound.
Tomorrow begins four days of shooting the courtroom scenes that are supposed to take place over three days. I have just two lines before the final climax on the last day that won't be shot until Monday morning, but I will be at counsel table throughout the hearing. Fortunately, I'll be seated the whole time which should be easy.
I came by today to get the feel of the place, and settle on wardrobe. [now they are getting ready to get the shot and everyone is yelling "quiet!". . . I think they will have to reshoot this because Koenig moved into a position where he was blocked by Hatch.] Tomorrow's shooting starts at 7:00am.
I'll try to provide more info later, but wanted to live blog this whenever possible. (It is 5:45pm here and shooting ends around 7:00pm) I hope to be able to live blog this over the weekend when my scenes are being filmed, but don't know how much I will be able to do. Fortunately there is WiFi throughout the studio.
They are now reshooting the scene but each actor keeps blocking the view of the other. . . . so now they're shooting take 3. . . . & 4, now they're moving on. The whole shoot is just around 15 days so it's going to go really fast.
Hatch and the director just came in for something to eat. It is pretty spartan in here. I am sitting here typing at one of a long bank of folding tables in the back of the room. On the other end of the table the props guy is mixing up a substance that will pass for vomit. It seems pretty trial and error from here. I see instant mashed potatoes, instant grits, food dye and hot water. In the props guy's words, "now it looks like yams," which is not the look he's going for.
Here's a photo (very blurry, sorry) of me on the courtroom set which is the same set used by Law and Order.
In the previous post I mentioned Walter Koenig, who as screenwriter is the moving force behind the film, Marini Sirtis and Richard Hatch. Here are some other principal cast members: Courtney Peldon
("Boston Public"), Eric Avari
("Stargate"), Jay Acovone
("Providence" "Stargate"), Patricia Tallman
(various "Star Treks"), Gary Graham
("Alien Nation"), and Richard Herd
("Seinfeld"). Only two actors are here now but most will be in the courtroom scenes, which are the climax of the film and bring together most of the principals. I have no idea what type of interaction I will be having with the actors. The main title actors have trailers just outside the sound stages. I imagine I will just be hanging out between scenes with the crew. Never having done anything like this before, I am a bit anxious about tomorrow But at least I was a prosecutor in real life and, when I was in the courtroom set earlier, it felt very natural. We'll see. At least I don't have to say anything until Monday.
Was here at 6:30 am for breakfast before the 7am call. Just a few crew members ate the breakfast, which was basic dorm food. Well. before dorms upgraded the food.
I am now in a conference room set off the courtroom that is serving as the green room waiting to be called to wardrobe and make up. There are no working outlets in this pretend conference center so I don't know if I will have enough laptop battery to blog all day. I hope to be able to do so from the set in between scenes. We'll see. We'll also see if there is enough interesting stuff to blog about.
Am shmoozing with Brandon Ford Green
who's playing the court clerk. Finding out about how he got into the acting business. Earlier I was talking with J.G. Herzler
("Star Trek Deep Space Nine") who is moving to Ithaca to teach drama at Cornell. He remarked that, though the Drama Department is next to the law school there, there is no connection between them. He said that because actors are full time liars, and lawyers lie for a living, law students would benefit from some dramatic training. I disputed the liars part, but said that those lawyers who try cases do need to present themselves the way they want to be perceived by others in court and some acting skills would be helpful for that. It is no secret that courtroom work does involve genuine acting, though I would not say that's the same as lying.
Just spoke with James Runcorn
, who is playing the bailiff and also casting the background actors. He said it would be great if my mom and dad, who live in Orange County and are coming to visit the set tomorrow, wanted to be spectators in the courtroom scenes. And they would get named credits at the end of the film too. I think that would be especially cool because when I was a real prosecutor in Chicago my parents came to 26th and California to watch me first chair a murder case. Now they would be in a pretend courtroom pretending to watch me pretending to be a prosecutor.
Casting Call for VC Readers:
James Runcorn is having a bit of trouble getting enough extras as background for the courtroom scenes. One benefit is that you will probably be seated while waiting for shots. You won't get paid, but you do get named in the end credits and IMDB credit. If you live in LA and want to head over to Sylmar TODAY (right away) or TOMORROW, email him at burbankexpress (at) aol.com. Today would obviously be very last minute, but tomorrow would work too. Drop him a line for the details.
Shooting the First Scene:
I am sitting at counsel table in the courtroom next to Marina Sirtis. They are now rehearsing the testimony of an expert witness. I am using my laptop as a prop so I will have it throughout the shoot and can blog as long as I have battery and something to say. They have blocked the first shot and, because it's facing the witness, I am not in it. So I am free to leave for the green room (such as it is), but they asked if I wanted to stay on set to answer any technical questions. Where should the bailiff stand? What would the writ look like? I reminded Marina that there was no jury in this hearing so she should not look at the jury box. Now that the crew and principals know I am here, they are starting to ask lots of questions, some of which have no correct answer ("How would the bailiff stand?"). This is definitely more fun than watching on a video monitor in the next room, or sitting around the cafeteria. I also get to watch the direction as well as see the actors, with each run-through, start to assume their roles on this, the first day they are playing these parts. But since this is a full courtroom set, it also just feels like sitting in a courtroom during a trial.
Update:Just had the camera on Marina and me for our reactions to the testimony--and one take just on me--so this was my first time on camera. Now we're on to the next witness. They seem to be varying the shot for each witness. First close up and now a very wide courtroom shot. Maybe we were waiting for the extras to show up. Now the courtroom really feels authentic with spectators and everything and no cameras in my view.
BTW most of the actors seem to want to talk politics.
Day 2: 7:30am Call:
Got to the studio today to find out that I now had my own trailer dressing room. The assistant director said I must have done well yesterday, but the truth is that yesterday we had 4 name actors playing expert witnesses, each of whom had a trailer, so today there are trailers to spare.
As I sit at counsel table on the set, I thought I would blog a bit about technical advisers. I was not included as a technical adviser but the director, cast and crew are using me as one. There is very little about this hearing on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that is realistic. What input I have on what remains is so obviously constrained that I hesitate even to raise obvious objections. Yesterday we filmed the cross examination of an expert witness in which the petitioners objected to leading the witness. Leading the witness is perfectly proper on cross examination. But (1) the actors had prepared for these lines (I had corrected a previous version of the script in many ways, but the original version was eventually restored.) (2) The actor playing the witness was having problems with some very long complicated lines (and eventually got one completely wrong), and most importantly it was the end of the day, everyone was tired and we were overtime. Even though this could easily have been fixed--just overrule rather than sustain the objection--I knew there was NO WAY any changes would be made. Still out of a feeling of professional obligation I spoke with the director about it and his response was, "We can live with this." True enough. And he has asked me for advice numerous times. This morning he said, "I'm going to do this anyway, but would it be OK if . . . ." Turns out what he wanted to do was perfectly all right, but his preface was still funny. I told him he was like a law school dean. "I am going to do this anyway, but I just want your input."
On the other hand, Eric Avari who is playing the petitioner's lawyer asked me about a bit of dialog in which he gives a long statement of facts before asking a question. He wanted to know if a lawyer would really to that. I told him he was summarizing the testimony of another witness for this witness to assume for purposes of rendering an opinion. All he had to do was preface his dialog with "It has been testified that . . . " and it would make perfect sense. That's just what he did.
Marina is a big Law and Order fan so she has a decent legal sense and is raising good questions about her dialog. I don't watch the show but it must be legally decent because she seems to have a legal background. I told her she should go for a part on Law and Order now that Fred Thompson is off the show. She's the perfect age and look for the part and has a lawyerly demeanor, she should submit the film of her scenes in this film. I just told her what I was blogging about and asked her if she would do it, and she said she will.
We're starting the scene now. I am in this shot, if only out of focus behind Marina. So I better go now.
Update: We just finished doing 5-6 takes of yesterday's scene only this time facing Marina (and counsel table) when she is questioning the witness. I know I am on camera because they touched up my make-up in between takes and the make-up person told me I was in the beginning of the shot. (So the make-up is a clue.) When we were all done, Marina said, "See they took your note. They overruled the objection." Assuming it was still wrong, I had paid no attention to what the judge said today in response to the objection. And because the camera was on Marina at this point, this is the take they are likely to use. I have to admit, I was pretty surprised.
Day 3: 8:00am Call:
I am typing this at counsel table on the set as the crew prepares for the first scene. Because there are no cameras in front of me, it just feels like waiting for court to begin in the morning. Today my wife and parents are here to be background in the courtroom. We film the last day of the hearing that is the climax of the film. And today I have my 2 lines. Because they are a critical part of the climax, I think they are likely to survive the editing — if I deliver them all right.
Some commenters have asked me to elaborate on my observation that most of the actors have wanted to talk politics with me, which remains true. I don't want to identify individual comments, but its no difference than academia, so I am pretty used to their tenor. You can fill in the blanks. Whether in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office or law teaching, I avoid talking politics with co-workers. There is an expression, "You don't sh** where you eat." And I do not feel any moral obligation to "correct" opinions I may feel are wrong simply because the speaker happens to be in my vicinity. I prefer to express my views in writing, whether my scholarship or blogging--especially with people I've just met.
Having said this, I did allow myself to get sucked into some substantive discussions, not so much about policy (e.g. national health care), but the justice system (e.g. Alberto Gonzeles). One actor told me he wants to produce a series for the History Channel on the landmark Supreme Court cases throughout history, which I think would be a really good idea. I will also say that Marina Sirtis with whom I am spending many hours together every day at counsel table during and in between takes is tremendously engaging, as well as remarkably forthcoming. (She was a frequent guest on HBO's Politically Incorrect.) She is nothing like her Deana Troi character--i.e. quiet and calm--which she said was very hard for her to play because it was so unlike her normal demeanor. She is quite outspoken on the set about how things are being done but seems to assert herself only when appropriate. Without any prompting from me, she is also telling me a lot about "the business" as well as about Star Trek goings on. And I see she is wearing stiletto heels today.
We're getting ready to start, so I should post this while I can.
Update: So later in the day, pretty much the only cast member I had not spoken with volunteered that he was a Republican and big Second Amendment advocate. Oh yes, and the editor is an anarcho-capitalist.
My Big Scene With Marina:
So I finally had my 2 lines which turned out to be the opening dialog to the big climax of the film. It was camera . . . sound . . . and ACTION, with me then grabbing Marina by her arm and telling her not to do what she is intending to do, and she turns to me to tell me why she is going to anyway, I question her explanation, and she then gives me another speech, stands speaks, and all hell breaks loose in the courtroom. We did it quite a few times because there was a lot of confusion about how the scene would be blocked. It took hours to figure it out. During my scene, no one ever came in between takes to tell me to do it differently so it must have been acceptable. Most everyone seems to assume I must be an actor in addition to being a lawyer or I wouldn't be in the film. I suspect it was a bit easier for me to act this part in a courtroom where I am comfortable, in a role I played in real life. And I had two days to study how the other actors prepared for their lines. The first time I saw Walter doing it, I thought he was talking on a cell phone. The film won't be out for a long time so I won't be able to see how it went until then. But there is a still photographer taking hundreds of pictures of everything that is shot so I am hoping to get a still of this scene. If I do, I will post it.
Oh yes, and I was interviewed today for the extended features for the DVD about how I came to be doing the film and what legal issues it explores.
In the meantime, I am writing this while waiting for my wife and parents to finish the courtroom scenes they are in. (Someone just came in to say they were ordering pizza so this might run really late.) Its only fitting after they waited around all morning before being called to set that I have to wait for them for hours before going to dinner. When I was still on set, I had to wake up my father before a scene started shooting that he was probably going to be in. And, at an early take of the spectators fleeing the courtroom in terror, my mom was walking out slowly, looking over he shoulder to see what was happening. An actor told me during that take he had seen me waiving at someone to get out of the courtroom and wondered who it could be, then saw it was my parents. Later, he was walking past the video array when he heard one of the crew say, "we need to get the spectators to have more energy" and he saw they were viewing my parents.
Day 4: 8:30am Call
My last day of shooting on the film. Because shooting went so late yesterday there is a mandatory 12 hour break and so we start late the next morning. Today we begin by shooting the witnesses that precede the final climax we filmed yesterday. Then we move on to shoot the first day of the hearing. On the political note, when I told the named actor who is playing today's expert I was a lawyer not an actor and that I had been a DA. He said, "Good, because if you had been defense attorney, I would have issues with you." (For MY opinion on defense lawyers click here
.) So there is more ideological balance in the cast than I first thought, though the wearing one's politics on one's sleeve is a constant.
I thought I would say a bit more about technical advising. I am not formally a technical adviser for the film, though the cast and crew are using me as one. Still, the director seems to view me as potential fly in the ointment (but see below). I have been pretty passive about even scrutinizing the legalities of the hearing. I made my efforts to clean up these thing when advising on the script a few weeks ago. What remains I figure is just going in regardless of what I say. And I mentioned in my previous post the many constraints that make objecting to anything so futile ex ante that one just doesn't bother.
But what has been a surprise to me is how much Eric and Marina, who are playing the lawyers, really care about the realism of what they are doing. Marina tends to clean up her dialog with her Law & Order training. Eric approaches me frequently to ask about his lines and I either reassure him or offer him an alternative that he then decides whether to use.
Yesterday, I was walking on the set and Eric was in conference with the director. He turned to me and said, "speak of the Devil, we were just saying we need to talk with you." His problem was with a ridiculous objection he was supposed to make. He said even a neophite would see how silly it was and he was right. I had removed that from the script in my rewrite, but it was part of a pretty major restructuring of the hearing I was proposing and, although my revisions were initially accepted, eventually it was decided to stick with the original structure. When that was restored, also restored were many of the smaller errors I had edited from the script that the movie people would never realize had been changed or why.
The problem was that, at this point in the hearing as it was now structured, there was no credible objection beyond the prejudicial impact outweighing the probative value of the evidence, and that was too big a mouthful for that highly charged moment in the action. So finally, I suggested he just object loudly without stating a basis and the judge would just over rule it, as had already happened numerous times in the film. [ASIDE: The director just interrupted my blogging to ask me a question about an objection and ruling we are filming today because he found it unrealistic. I proposed a possible solution. It seems he also sees me as a potential resource. More on this below.]
So the solution to the legally stupid objection and stupid judicial ruling yesterday was simply to cut the basis of the objection and the ruling. [While I am typing here, the director and producer are discussing the cost overruns caused by yesterday's overtime.]
But then Eric raised another issue. The legal business culminates in a violent outburst in the courtroom. Eric wanted a reason to be located away from the fight or he would just be seen standing by. Yesterday, Marina had wanted to get away from the fight so she would not have to be on the set for hours as they reshot the fight over and over from every angle. So Eric suggests he ask to approach the bench and I offered the dialog for the judge to tell all attorneys to approach, which would get us all out of the action. [BTW, no one ever tells me what to do, though I am in the scene too, so I just improvise. I assume this mainly means I am not in the shot.]
When we were set to go we blocked the action a couple times. It then occurred to me that there was a big problem. Since we were all at the bench we now needed a legal discussion and ruling before the disputed evidence could be introduced. That just returned us to where we began and added the need for another scene at the bench to be written and filmed. This time I decided to be proactive so I went to the director who by now was on the bench telling the judge about the changes we had made. I could not speak with him from below because of a dolly track the camera was using so I had to go all the way onto the bench myself. I tried to explain the problem and the director said, we'd think about it later. I said fine. A while later, when we were blocking again he looked at me and said, "Oh, I see the problem." There was just no way to get on with the action. So we quickly decided to go back to our original simple solution, and then after Marina and I have our confrontation and she rises to present the evidence we all just move out of range of where the fight was going to happen. Problem solved, but it took quite a while.
This morning's question concerned another unrealistic ruling by the judge that bothered the director. The judge responds to the objection that says she does not see the relevance of the issue raised by the lawyer and then comments on the evidence. The problem was that the issue was clearly relevant and the judge should not be offering her characterization of the evidence. He asked me if I could think of an alternative. The shortest not completely accurate, but still plausible, answer is "That's for your argument, counsel."
Just before finishing this post, we filmed an action scene from yesterday's climax in which I am finally out of my chair and ducking when a shot is fired. I have no idea if I am in frame or focus, but at least I am on my feet and moving. I may be a back-suited blur behind the shooter in the background that only I will recognize.
Pictures From the Shoot:
With Marina's permission I am posting the wonderful pictures taken by Michele K. Short
of scenes shot over the past 3 days. Click on the photo to see a larger size.) The first pic is of my dialog with Marina, the third is chatting with Walter Koenig in between takes.
For more click show:
Randy Barnett Attracts the Envy of Sci-Fi Geeks:
Co-blogger Randy Barnett is no doubt attracting the envy of science fiction geeks all over the internet by appearing in a movie with Marina Sirtis and Walter Koenig. As Randy mentions, Sirtis played Counselor Troi on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Koenig played Mr. Chekhov in the original Star Trek, and the sinister Psi-Cop Bester in Babylon 5 (one of the most interesting characters in that show, in my view).
Perhaps we can look forward to Randy's next appearance in a movie on The Law of Star Trek. Better still, he and Koenig could star in a Babylon 5 sequel on the legal issues raised by telepathy and the Psi-Corps (of which Bester is a powerful member). Many of the Psi-Corps' functions surely violate numerous constitutional rights that Randy has defended in his scholarship.
This proposal will join my plan for a Superman film where he learns about opportunity costs on the list of Hollywood scripts I hope to write. If you work for a Hollywood studio, my people are waiting to hear from your people!
Final Comments on My Filming Experience:
Late yesterday I finished my part of the filming on Inalienable. I got my first direction today as the director told me he wanted me to react with horror to the (pretend) showing of a video in court. So I had time to think of how to react. Through all the hearing my laptop was open, but during the final scene, we shot yesterday, I had chosen to keep it closed. For this scene, I decided my reaction would include slowly closing my laptop cover as I stared at the screen. After the first take no one told me to try it a different way for the second, so it must have been all right.
Everyone involved in the production was so warm and generous. When an actor finishes his role, they announce to the crew and cast the "production wrap" for that actor and everyone applauds. Yesterday was Marina's and my production wrap. Naturally, she got well-deserved cheers for a terrific performance. I have had several women prosecutors as role models in my career and, as I sat next to her, I really felt she was the real thing. As I write this, I am now reminded of when I was a law student assisting then-Suffolk County ADA Alice Richmond in a murder case when she let me sit at counsel table. Although I knew more about the law than Marina, she was the authority figure for the acting thing. But she really is a natural as a courtroom attorney. I hope she goes up for and gets a part on her beloved Law and Order. Hell, if Shatner can do it. . . I told her to think about going to law school if the day ever came when she was not getting enough work as an actor.
After the wrap, the director came up said nice things about my contributions. Frankly, although he said many things, the only comment of his I can recall was: "You really know how to handle yourself on a movie set" (or words to that effect). I thought this was very high praise coming from him, and says something about the issues I discussed in my previous posts.
After that, the associate producer told me that everyone up here (meaning in the courtroom set where we were standing) was a professional actor and no one could have told that I was not as well. Indeed, for all four days everyone seemed to think that, although I was lawyer, I was also an actor. (During the shoot, more than a few commented that I looked like a real prosecutor on the video. One said I was very well cast.) I had to tell several of the principals that I already had the job I wanted and was unlikely ever to do this again. People who are not academics just don't get what a great career this is--you can even do the occasional movie part!
As I was on my way off the the set, I could not leave because they were recording a voice over of the clerk announcing the case and the court. I stood at the door with my hand on the knob, I was not really paying attention as he did it three times then everyone started gathering up their equipment, but his last words rung in my ear "The United States District Court of Columbia." Of Columbia
? I turned to the associate producer, who was standing next to me, and said, "that's not right, did he say it that way every time?" He said "let's see." As everyone was gathering their things and closing down their equipment, we got the script and saw it was written wrong. The director of sound called everyone back together and had them rerecord it with "for the District of Columbia" instead. Then I left the set for the last time.
The producer who was responsible for my involvement in the film told me to come back to the studio as they shoot the rest of the film over the next 10 days. I told him I would. But as I drove to Orange County to stay with my parents, I realized that would be a big mistake. The past four days have been as close to a perfect fantasy experience as I have ever had and, for a TV and movie fan, I think is even possible
Not only was I able to act in a feature film, I was there because of my legal experience and knowledge (which I used as a script consultant before the filming) and was treated as an authority on the set, not just as an amateur intruder, who could add something of value to the production. Everyone was so supportive and respectful throughout. I was always included as an equal at meals or other informal gatherings. Just as I loved hearing all their movie/TV stories (which they love to tell), they loved hearing my legal ones about my time as a prosecutor or arguing in the Supreme Court. When the cast publicity photo was taken yesterday at the bench, there was no question but that I was included with the other "name" actors and the director. Amazing! Possibly the best part was getting spend 4 days at counsel table for hours at a time with Marina Sirtis, a most intelligent and engaging person. And I had watched every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation
, and seen every Star Trek
film. So I was a real fan of hers on top of everything else. We actually worked together on our parts, coordinating our moves, exchanging glances, etc. She and I were able to talk about everything and she is nothing if not open and candid. And I also had lengthy intense conversations with Walter Koenig and Eric Avari as well. Eric is a really personable and sweet guy.
So I don't think I will go back. Anything that happens now cannot help but be anticlimactic. And I don't want to do anything to diminish what is going to be a memory I will always treasure.
InAlienable Publicity Photo:
I thought those who read my live blogging
(click link for all posts on one page) from the set of InAlienable
last week might enjoy seeing these two publicity photos of the cast that I just received from photographer Michele K. Short
. From left to right: Eric Avari, Richard Hatch, Courtney Peldon, Judy Levitt (Walter Koenig's wife), Walter Koenig, Marina Sirtis, and me (click on photos for larger image).
This picture is of just the "legal" characters:
Want More Star Trek?
I saw the new Star Trek movie last night in IMAX and, like Casino Royale, it was an excellent and clever reboot of a series that had previously become stale and boring. Let us hope that the next one is not as disappointing as the Bond sequel Quantum of Solace. For those who want more Star Trek, there is a deal for you.
InAlienable, the sci-fi film in which I appeared as an assistant prosecutor (and chronicled here as linked below), is now available in DVD for purchase for $20 from Renegade Studios
. (Not available on NetFlix or rentals.) On my website
, you can watch a brief interview with me from the set of InAlienable that also features clips of the other actors.
InAlienable was written by Walter Koenig, who played Chekov in the original Star Trek series and films. In addition to Koenig himself, InAlienable stars Richard Hatch (Battlestar Galactica), Courtney Peldon (Boston Public), Marina Sirtis (Star Trek: Next Generation), and Erick Avari (Stargate, Heroes). The supporting cast includes Jay Acovone (Stargate SG-1), Judy Levitt (Babylon 5), Andrew Koenig (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), Pat Tallman (Babylon 5), Gary Graham (Alien Nation, Star Trek: Enterprise), Alan Ruck (Star Trek: Generations, Ferris Bueller's Day Off), Philip Anthony Rodriguez (Jake 2.0, Star Trek: Enterprise) and Tim Russ (Star Trek: Voyager).
If you buy this DVD, Renegade Studios will include a DVD of its recent feature film, Star Trek: Of Gods & Men. The cast is led by Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura in the original "Star Trek" series. In the film, Chekov and Uhura are thrust into an adventure in a parallel universe where Captain James T. Kirk never existed, and the galaxy is in turmoil. The two are joined by Captain John Harriman, who commanded the Enterprise-B in "Generations." Alan Ruck, of "Spin City" and "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" fame, reprises the role he played in that film.
for more information on this offer. PS: I receive no remuneration from this offer. I am just happy that Volokh readers can finally see the film they first read about here.