Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Star. Trek. vs. Lost. In. Space. Capt. and. Starman. Show

Star. Trek. vs. Lost. In. Space. Capt. and. Starman. Show
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 11:02 AM
 


The hate is strong with this one. (See what I did there?)

I can see why people don't like it, but I kinda do.

It's gotta be better than the last one, right?

Right?
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 03:36 PM
 
I am beyond disbelief.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 04:46 PM
 
Star Trek: Tokyo Drift

The Enterprise managed to last a whole three movies before the writers destroyed it. Congrats.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 04:54 PM
 
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.

Not a character, still just a vessel.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Star Trek: Tokyo Drift
Apart from complaints of it's "not Star Trek enough", is there really anything wrong with that?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 05:03 PM
 
As an aside, if transporters can't deal with conservation of momentum, they won't really work at all.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 05:10 PM
 
You say "sabotage", I say "sabatage".
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
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.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2016, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Star Trek: Tokyo Drift

The Enterprise managed to last a whole three movies before the writers destroyed it. Congrats.
Agreed. So sad.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 09:41 AM
 
I think I'd watch that. Prepared to be disappointed, but I'd watch that.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 12:56 PM
 
I'll watch it. Now whether or not I'll see it in the theater or wait till it hits the Apple TV is another question.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Other than not being Star Trek, what exactly is wrong here?

I like ensemble sci-fi.
I like blowing up stuff good.
I like chopsocky.
I like comic relief.

Seems like a good enough time, if not a true winner.


FWIW, both Lin and Peeg say the trailer sucks and the actual movie has less of a FnF tone.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 02:03 PM
 
The "Chris Pine as Captain Kirk" versions have all been more action films than traditional Star Trek movies. This appears to be par for the course.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 04:49 PM
 
Maybe Star Trek is better as a TV series.

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.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Apart from complaints of it's "not Star Trek enough", is there really anything wrong with that?
This is like saying "Aside from your steak being fish, is there anything wrong with it?"
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe Star Trek is better as a TV series.
I agree 100%. What made it a movie property was having been a TV show. The characters were established on the TV show.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2016, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is like saying "Aside from your steak being fish, is there anything wrong with it?"
You watched the trailer. It says "fish" on the menu. No one is putting a gun to your head to order it. This isn't surprise butt fish.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 01:10 AM
 
Ugh. Just no. It's really sad how little these people understand what Star Trek means to Trekkies.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 03:24 AM
 
"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
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Ugh. Just no. It's really sad how little these people understand what Star Trek means to Trekkies.
Always relevant:

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/04/09
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Ugh. Just no. It's really sad how little these people understand what Star Trek means to Trekkies.
It's never going to get worse than Enterprise.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 04:29 PM
 
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
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, it's not. It's not fair use. Alec made $38k from the money that was made.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 05:17 PM
 
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.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 05:23 PM
 
Lost in Space had superior FX? Are you on crack?

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 05:48 PM
 
I dropped out of the reboots after the first one. This does nothing to bring me back. Guess I'll wait for the reboot of the reboots.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2016, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
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
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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.
Wrong. Very wrong. Other fan films get paid *nothing*. That's how it works. That's how you stay off CBS/P's radar.

Derp.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/star-trek-continues/

"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!"

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
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
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You watched the trailer. It says "fish" on the menu. No one is putting a gun to your head to order it. This isn't surprise butt fish.
Why are you trampling on my first amendment rights?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 01:06 PM
 
Because you're a fascist.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Because you're a fascist.
I really wish I had a come back here.

But to reply seriously, because each sequel keeps veering further away.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
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
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 04:13 PM
 
Not PWL. Keep it cool.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 04:23 PM
 
Nm.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2016, 04:47 PM
 
OMFG. It says RIGHT THERE ON PAGE 41.

"On information and belief, Defendants enjoy a direct financial benefit from the preparation, duplication, and distribution of the infringing Axanar Works"

Even Wil Wheaton chimed in today:

WIL WHEATON dot TUMBLR — Do you know what the deal with this ST fan film...

"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. )

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
OMFG. It says RIGHT THERE ON PAGE 41.
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
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 02:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 04:18 AM
 
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.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 05:20 AM
 
For those still thinking this is about the peanuts that Axanar has raised: Paramount, CBS list the ways Star Trek fanfic Axanar infringes copyright | Ars Technica

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 View Post
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
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 10:48 AM
 
That Ars article is crap. Read the comments.

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).

Two. Million. Dollars. Gone.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 11:32 AM
 
I work for a non-profit. I get paid. We sell stuff. We are still a non-profit.
/anecdotal /IANAL
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
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.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
That Ars article is crap. Read the comments.
Sure, whatever.

Originally Posted by starman View Post
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
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Sure, whatever.



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."

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 04:40 PM
 
Do I understand this right?

Paramount is suing for IP infringement over a movie which doesn't exist yet?
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do I understand this right?

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.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 04:59 PM
 
They'd have a more solid case if there was an actual movie.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2016, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do I understand this right?

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
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,