If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
In Star Trek III, given the history and fandom of the show, the Enterprise was a character, the same as the humans. I was just a teen at the time, and remember people sobbing in the audience.
This Enterprise hasn't been established. It'd have been like blowing up the Enterprise-D during the events of The Last Outpost, with the first appearance of the Ferengi.
In Star Trek III, given the history and fandom of the show, the Enterprise was a character, the same as the humans. I was just a teen at the time, and remember people sobbing in the audience.
It was the Star Trek equivalent to Han Solo in carbonite.
Edit: I guess that was Khan, but you know what I mean.
What I always liked about it was its exploration of humanity, but this seemed to be better to do in less than an hour and each episode didn't need the production values that people seem to want in movies these days. I think the older TV series played better than many of the movies too.
The Abrams movies, as has been said, are space action movies. They might as well just call them something else so that Trekkies don't get grumpy and they have more creative leeway, since as it stands this doesn't resemble Star Trek.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Apart from the awful theme music, I thought Enterprise was pretty good. Far better than Deep Snooze 9.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Star Trek - TOS was pretty good for the time, as opposed to Lost in Space (which had superior SPFX) which sucked more than a Rigid Shop vac. The problem was the afterthought Treks like TNG, DS9, and Enterprise. They looked more like "we want to milk this as long as possible" shows instead of offering us newer and better. I got sick of it and wanted something better. That turned out to be Babylon 5. Its first year was about a C+, but the rest was Class A. A REAL 5 year story arc. It was also the first SPFX show that was all CGI. They were using some primitive software but had, at the time the largest file space ships of Babylon 5 and the Shadow ships with moving surfaces. I still watch the DVD's because you end up following the story rather than the SPFX.
No, it's not. It's not fair use. Alec made $38k from the money that was made.
Many of the actors were paid too. Why? Because you're allowed to pay yourself a reasonable salary from proceeds while still being non-profit. Derp.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Our producers have never drawn a salary, and they never will. In fact, executive producer Vic Mignogna personally funded the first episode and has put nearly $150,000 of his own money into the series. Co-executive producer Steven Dengler has contributed over $100,000. Our co-producers donate their time -- some working hard every day of the year on various aspects of the show -- simply because of a deep love for Star Trek and for our STC family!"
Wrong. Very wrong. Other fan films get paid *nothing*. That's how it works.
Nope. What other projects have done has nothing to do with what is legal. If you had a lick of sense you'd see the money the actors and producers are being paid has nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringement claims (which are the foundation of the complaint). That's something you just pulled out of your a$$. Did you even read the article I linked?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Nope. What other projects have done has nothing to do with what is legal. If you had a lick of sense you'd see the money the actors and producers are being paid has nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringement claims (which are the foundation of the complaint). That's something you just pulled out of your a$$. Did you even read the article I linked?
If you read the original and amended complaint, well, let's just say you didn't because you just made a fool out of yourself. Stop reading crap that other people interpret ("It's all about pointed ears!") and read the doc itself.
Read page 41 of the amended complaint. I actually effing READ IT. You'll see how wrong you are.
Also, do you know WHY the amended complaint came out and why it's so detailed? Probably not.
Now excuse me, I have an interview with Vic in 30 minutes.
If you read the original and amended complaint, well, let's just say you didn't because you just made a fool out of yourself. Stop reading crap that other people interpret ("It's all about pointed ears!") and read the doc itself.
Read page 41 of the amended complaint. I actually effing READ IT. You'll see how wrong you are.
Also, do you know WHY the amended complaint came out and why it's so detailed? Probably not.
Now excuse me, I have an interview with Vic in 30 minutes.
I did too, you're wrong. Totally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Painfully wrong. Taking donations for production costs, and allocating those resources towards salaries (which is a common practice with amateur film projects), has nothing to do with the copyright infringement case. The root of this is Axanar's production values, it looks and feels like a professional film, despite being put together on a shoestring, relatively speaking, and being distributed for free once it's released. The filing is so detailed because if the copyright holders don't file the claim (and aren't exhaustive about what they're defending), Paramount could lose certain rights in the future. It's a shitty system, it essentially forces companies to do things like this or they place their properties at risk. Paramount/CBS doesn't expect to win, it's very unlikely they will, and the only thing it does is take money out of the filmmaker's pocket to pay legal fees, money that could have gone to making a better movie.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"On information and belief, Defendants enjoy a direct financial benefit from the preparation, duplication, and distribution of the infringing Axanar Works"
"Most fan films, even the really polished ones, have very small budgets that rarely break USD10,000, but these people were effectively making a commercially-viable low budget (by Hollywood Standards) film, having raised over USD600,000. And they were going to invest that money into an unlicensed, copyright infringing film using Star Trek intellectual property that is owned by CBS.
These people are not innocent victims. They are morally and ethically and legally in the wrong, and while I have a lot of problems with copyright and IP law, these guys are not the people I want to be the poster children for reforming those laws.
...
They are not on your side, they are not on Star Trek’s side, they are not good people."
So what the everliving eff do you NOT SEE ABOUT THIS BEING ABOUT MONEY?
Also, I just spoke to Vic. It's about financial responsibility. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
EDIT: If you still don't think it's about money, think about this: Alec Peters raised over two MILLION dollars to make Axanar. Where did it all go? Where's the goddamn film? How many years has it been? This is PURELY about money raised under Star Trek's name with NO PRODUCT.
Other fan films like STC are financially responsible. STC was just granted a 501(c)(3) which means they're now an official charity. Also, when I was ending my talk with Vic, he said he was on his way to Rod's (Roddenberry) house. Rod is an EP on the new show, so if you want to talk about who's doing it right and who's doing it very wrong, I can talk about this all day.
And you're very, very, VERY effing wrong.
(
Last edited by starman; Mar 15, 2016 at 05:02 PM.
)
You're citing Wil Wheaton? Axanar is done, it's already shot and in post production, and that stuff takes time. I can't help it if neither you, him, or Roddenberry's gardener's first cousin's boyfriend, understands copyright law and/or what constitutes Fair Use.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You're citing Wil Wheaton? Axanar is done, it's already shot and in post production, and that stuff takes time. I can't help it if neither you, him, or Roddenberry's gardener's first cousin's boyfriend, understands copyright law and/or what constitutes Fair Use.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not.
I was quoting the amended complaint which you obviously haven't read.
Axanar hasn't even been CASTED yet. It hasn't shot a damn thing except for the Prelude clip.
I poked around the Axanar website for answers. They don't have a basic progress meter unfortunately. Info seems to dribble out through the blog sections.
It appears they were days to weeks away from shooting when the lawsuit hit (Dec 29). Most of the sets were built, costumes made, and most (all?) of the casting done. On the advice of their lawyers, they have paused production pending legal developments.
Preproduction continues, along with VFX work. So they're doing the outside shots, and are apparently ready to shoot actors the moment the lawyers give clearance.
The salaries for the actors, director, and producers wasn't even listed in the numerated complaints, it has no bearing on the alleged copyright violations. This is all about Paramount feeling they need to protect their brand against a superior vision for the franchise. Despite its meager budget, Axanar looks better than what they've been able to make over their last 2 "monster" budget filming attempts. It's sad but true. It's what Trek should have been, not the glossy rehash that they put out instead, and they know it. They're afraid it'll make them look bad, that an amateur studio could one-up them, and they have every right to be. That would certainly put Abrams, Burk, et al. on the hot seat.
Originally Posted by reader50
Preproduction continues, along with VFX work. So they're doing the outside shots, and are apparently ready to shoot actors the moment the lawyers give clearance.
There's much more done than people outside the project realize.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There's nothing done. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that anything was done at all. As for casting, Tony Todd dropped out, saying "There's something very, very wrong at Axanar".
As for the lawsuit, I knew it was coming back in September. Since I know a lot of people (like, actually had dinner with them), I heard all about these problems from various sources. Where is the money going? Why hasn't anything been done in two years? Why did Tony Todd leave and nobody said anything (Tony left in August, 2015: https://twitter.com/TonyTodd54/statu...97048520081408).
I work for a non-profit. I get paid. We sell stuff. We are still a non-profit.
/anecdotal /IANAL
Yes, but your non-profit is probably not based on someone else's IP. Also, the Axanar studio is FOR-profit, funded with the money taken by fans. Where's the movie? It's been four years.
What does that have to do w/ copyright? I'd say it would be much further, if Paramount would stop ****ing with them, out of spite.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What does that have to do w/ copyright? I'd say it would be much further, if Paramount would stop ****ing with them, out of spite.
You're not seeing the big picture. Two MILLION dollars taken in the name of Star Trek with NO PRODUCT over the course of YEARS. Just today, one of the producers posted on FB that they'd need MORE MONEY if the suit was dropped today. How can you not see what's going on here?
"Mike Bawden I don't know. I do know that they did not raise all the money they thought would be needed to produce the entire film, so I think the short answer to your question would be: they couldn't."
Paramount is suing for IP infringement over a movie which doesn't exist yet?
Specifically, they're suing because profitable money was made using Star Trek's IP. If they kept the film non-profit like other fan productions do, then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Couple that with the fact that $2M was raised over two crowd funding campaigns using Star Trek's name, and there's not a single frame shot of the actual movie, well, you can see why CBS/P would be concerned.
Paramount is suing for IP infringement over a movie which doesn't exist yet?
Yep. That says a lot, doesn't it? The only thing the Axanar filmmakers are guilty of is underestimating their budgetary needs, but that's pretty common for a project of this scope. Many people, myself included, have offered to make up the discrepancy, because we believe it will be an amazing film, but they aren't accepting a dime until the Paramount c*ckblock is put to rest (though their legal representation is largely being done pro bono). Doesn't exactly paint them as the greedy money-grubbers many of their detractors make them out to be, does it?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr