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 (Page 3)
Thread Tools
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2016, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
They moved all the info behind the IMDB paywall.
I didn't see that. Why in the world would they do that?

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2016, 06:45 PM
 
Finally, an easy one.

Greed. Hands out. Need to make yacht payments. er, they've been placing all in-development (pre-production) movies behind their paywall for a while. I think this one is incorrectly characterized. Axanar has shot some footage, and is definitely building sets. They're in an undetermined stage of production, not in development.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2016, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Star Trek (effects) - iconic

Lost in Space - laughable
From the professional SPFX folks

TOS ORIGINAL effects were bad enough to be REPLACED by CGI.

You really aren't someone who understands how movies and TV shows with SPFX are done. Your OPINIONS don't matter.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2016, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
From the professional SPFX folks

TOS ORIGINAL effects were bad enough to be REPLACED by CGI.

You really aren't someone who understands how movies and TV shows with SPFX are done. Your OPINIONS don't matter.
No, I've only been following the SFX market for 40 years. What the hell would I know?

The bottom line is this - Star Trek resonates both in their story and effects. It has for 50 years. Blue screen on TV was relatively new and expensive then. The Enterprise model is 11 feet long because you needed to not make the ship look like it was a model, with the lenses they were using and it worked. On Lost in Space, the J2 and the Derelict, etc. were all small models and you could tell. It was just...bad. Like I said, I saw it was bad at the age of six, do you really think I'm going to not notice it now? The people working on LiS were not forward thinkers.

EDIT: forgot to mention that the CGI on Star Trek is optional. You can switch between old and new effects if you want. The cost involved meant they couldn't do some things you can now. Like, an F-15 chasing the Enterprise. Try doing this shot in 1966:



Note: this is not from the show itself, but still an impressive work of CGI:


The huge difference between Star Trek and LiS is that the the writing in LiS seemed to work around what limits they had at the time. Here's the Jupiter 2 going down a dark cave. Here's someone throwing tin foil balls at the Jupiter 2. Laughable. For Star Trek, with blue screen, you didn't have limits.
( Last edited by starman; Mar 18, 2016 at 07:23 PM. )

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2016, 07:58 AM
 
The Hero Jupiter 2 was 4 feet in diameter and represented a 47-60 foot diameter saucer. The Derelict was about 11 feet long. Not that small. I too have been a SPFX fan since I was about 6-7. I made movies as a kid and studied similar areas like magic, model making , puppetry, make-up effects etc. My Youtube mechanical lighting test was from 2002. I've also done stop motion and high speed photography, and currently have a copy of the 4 foot Jupiter hull in my garage waiting for the landing gear. I do SPFX as a hobby so I've been able to encounter the same problems as the pros. I think our differences has to do with our own experiences. I hope you visit the 2 Hobbytalk links for more info on the 11 foot TOS enterprise, and what the Smithsonian is doing to fix the old girl up.

I agree that TOS had a much more mature level of story writing and such. Both were products of the 1960's. TOS was written about people, wheras LIS was...well simplistic crap with rotating groups of monsters and silly props. BOTH had good music sound tracks. Like I said I can't watch LIS much past episode 5, the Keeper pt. 1. There are only a handful of TOS episodes I don't care to watch. I like TOS with the GCI myself. Doomsday Machine is far better that way.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2016, 04:29 PM
 
Axanar has filed their response to the CBS/Paramount suit. TorrentFreak coverage. From the filing's Conclusion:

Plaintiffs implausibly claim infringement as to elements not protected by copyright, have failed to put Defendants on fair notice of their claims, and seek premature relief. Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to dismiss or strike Plaintiffs’ claims.
The general argument is that facts, ideas, names, costumes, or languages are not copyrightable. Even if they were, CBS/Paramount did not specify which of their copyright(s) were infringed. And the suit is prior restraint of speech, since it applies to a motion picture "which does not exist in a fixed, tangible form".

The last part suggests the film is in production. I read the response with an eye for production info. There were tidbits scattered throughout.
Plaintiffs concede that (with the exception of the “Vulcan Scene”) the Potential Fan Film has not yet been made. {ref} Indeed, there are multiple versions of the script, and the script is still being revised and re-written.
So the Vulcan Scene is complete. The final cut of the script has not been done yet. The wordings imply to me that other elements of production may have been filmed/rendered, but they avoid specific details. My opinion is the outside CGI (ship scenes) are well along, but the filing doesn't clarify.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2016, 04:51 PM
 
Rewriting and revisions during production is pretty par for the course.

Multiple scripts during production is bad. Very bad.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2016, 06:49 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
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2016, 12:52 AM
 
Lukas Kendall wrote a long article about the Axanar situation, and he's 100% correct.

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar | Page 703 | The Trek BBS

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2016, 02:10 AM
 
Afraid he's not 100% correct. For example, he says he's read "the final draft" of the script. The Axanar legal filing says there are still multiple script versions. Those lawyers are risking fines, jail time, and their licenses if they lie to the court.

He tries to rewrite what a non-profit effort is, by defining it as various budget amounts or durations. Dancing around the obvious definition. If the final product is released at no charge, the effort is non-profit.

He also skipped the legal filings, which I've read or skimmed. CBS execs may feel as he describes, but the Court will decide these issues. And the judge is persuaded by legal arguments, not CBS exec opinions.

Based on the filings, you can't have copyright infringement when it doesn't exist yet. CBS can sue after there's a target to sue, and provided they can identify copyrighted elements that have been infringed. Until then, they're trying for prior restraint of speech.

I've also been reading related articles, including a good TechDirt article yesterday. The basics: modern versions of copyright heavily conflict with the 1st Amendment. The basis of (c) was established in the main Constitution. Since the 1st Amendment was passed later, it wins any conflicts.

The courts haven't been enforcing this so far, but the 1st should require a showing of harm before any infringement suit could succeed. That would knock out statutory damages, and require a showing of actual damages. If no actual damages can be shown, the infringement suit would fail. This would legalize most fan films (regardless of budget size) from (c) infringement suits.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2016, 06:33 AM
 
Exactly. What they're trying to do is prosecute "pre-crime", in a sense, and that's an obvious infringement of rights.
"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
Apr 10, 2016, 02:48 PM
 
So let me get this straight - if Axanar wins, that opens the door to everyone blatantly disregarding copyright. Got it.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2016, 04:50 PM
 
Not everyone, and Axanar may be sue-able after the film is done. But even if it were everyone, I wouldn't have a problem with it so long as it's non-profit. Anything sold could go through CBS/Paramount.

Studio control of fan films seems silly to me. Axanar for example. They are not using a single frame from any official movie or episode. Not even any major official character. The studios are trying to claim ownership of ideas or methods, which are the subject of patents. Not copyrights.

If CBS has a patent on a Transporter, I'll line up to license it so I can build one. If their transporter doesn't actually work, then I don't think it can be patented. The patent office routinely rejects perpetual motion machines.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2016, 07:36 PM
 
Any patent they had would have expired for now.

I think it is interesting. So yes, correct, the courts can't stop the making of the film. They can stop its distribution after it has been made, but would have to list exactly how it infringes - letting its director cut the film to avoid infringing topics.

Exactly what is infringing is the interesting part. Star Trek wasn't exactly revolutionary in what concepts it used, so they can probably find prior art on anything general. It would have to be rather specific. I could see the entire concept of Klingons being off the table, for instance, but you could probably call them Kigons and be fine. That is what happened when TSR (Dungeons & Dragons) wanted to use Lord of the Rings material in its games - they couldn't say Hobbit, ent, or mithril, so it became Halfling, tree-ant and mithral instead, but they worked the same. They got away with using the term Orc on a technicality, that the term exists in the Beowulf codex in one spot (though probably meaning "foreigner" rather than referring to a monster). They could use e.g. elves because they were from folklore, even if their elves behaved like the ones from LOTR rather than the ones from folklore. This is the way forward for a project like Axanar, I think - avoid the exact terms of Star Trek and make something confusingly similar.
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.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2016, 09:36 PM
 
Using D&D as an example is a bad idea since they were sued for using C'thulu, and lost. I have one the original monster manuals before they pulled the C'thulu mythos out of it.

As for Star Trek, how can you say Klingons are off the table and then turn around and say that TSR couldn't use Hobbits? "Kingons" doesn't work because it's too close, and Hobbit vs. halfling isn't an accurate analogy since halfling (non-proper) is a description and "Kingon" (proper) is a blatant removal of one letter to dance around infringement.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to create the "Mac Network of News"

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2016, 09:46 PM
 
Were they sued, or just went along with a C&D? I vaguely remember there's some interesting history here and the problems could have been worked out. At least with Chaosium. I don't recall about the Moorcock stuff.

That said, the Deities & Demigods case isn't relevant because they didn't file-off the serial numbers. If they had been sued for "Cathulu" and "Elrock", that would be a different story.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2016, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Were they sued, or just went along with a C&D? I vaguely remember there's some interesting history here and the problems could have been worked out. At least with Chaosium. I don't recall about the Moorcock stuff.

That said, the Deities & Demigods case isn't relevant because they didn't file-off the serial numbers. If they had been sued for "Cathulu" and "Elrock", that would be a different story.
I heard they were sued, or at least had legal action. Regardless, it's still something TSR took that they shouldn't have.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2016, 10:36 PM
 
Whether you can take IP (Deities), or take it and file off the serial numbers (halflings) are different questions.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2016, 11:52 PM
 
Wiki has the Deities & Demigods story.

Chaosium ultimately agreed to let it go as long as they got credit in subsequent printings. TSR decided they'd rather drop the sections than mention a competitor.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 12, 2016 at 05:10 PM. )
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2016, 01:34 AM
 
CBS Reportedly Shuts Down Second Fan-Film | 1701News

It's possible that with the new show being serialized like True Detective, that ANY show dealing outside the time period of any of the other series' may be a problem.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 04:45 AM
 

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 05:44 AM
 
I liked the sabatage one better.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 09:19 AM
 
Wow, that one was much better.
"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
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 02:20 PM
 
I get this odd sense it's a direct response to people hating the last one.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 02:23 PM
 
Is this movie going to be it for this cast? Trilogy then reboot seems to be the standard.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 03:07 PM
 
They still have to fix the paradox that Nero caused, don't they?
"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
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 03:19 PM
 
I feel like they long abandoned putting that kind of thought into things.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2016, 07:56 PM
 
Paramount Will Be Ending Fan Film Lawsuit According To JJ Abrams | Deadline

Yay! CBS finally figured out how badly they're taking a dump on their fans (and their lawyers are warning them that they can't win).
"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
May 22, 2016, 04:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Paramount Will Be Ending Fan Film Lawsuit According To JJ Abrams | Deadline

Yay! CBS finally figured out how badly they're taking a dump on their fans (and their lawyers are warning them that they can't win).
So what you're saying is that anyone can now build a "studio", pay themselves a salary from crowdfunded sources, and then make their own Star Trek film, and give CBS/Paramount none of the profits?

Tell me again how their lawyers "can't win" when these people were stealing both crowdfunded money and IP?

[X] Legit

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
May 22, 2016, 06:21 AM
 
"can now"? You never did understand what the terms "for profit" and "fair use" mean, did you? I guess I'll add "stealing" to the list too. Fortunately CBS figured it out and decided to stop wasting other people's time.

[X] starman is terribly confused

Edit: I have to admit that reading the reddit butthurt over this turn of events has been truly glorious. Very entertaining.
"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
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 06:26 AM
 
What profits? They're giving away the film for free. They're being paid to do what the donors wanted. And they had to build a "studio" warehouse in order to make the film.

I'm waiting on confirmation of this. J.J. Abrams isn't a studio exec, or lawyer representing same.

It is likely none of this would have happened if Paramount/Abrams hadn't rebooted Star Trek as a teen space adventure. Fans wanted the real thing enough to raise serious money for it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I liked the sabatage one better.
I did too. This one had too much plot points given away.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I did too. This one had too much plot points given away.
Unpopular opinions represent.

[fist bump]
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
What profits? They're giving away the film for free. They're being paid to do what the donors wanted. And they had to build a "studio" warehouse in order to make the film.

I'm waiting on confirmation of this. J.J. Abrams isn't a studio exec, or lawyer representing same.

It is likely none of this would have happened if Paramount/Abrams hadn't rebooted Star Trek as a teen space adventure. Fans wanted the real thing enough to raise serious money for it.
They're also selling Star Trek-related items without giving the profits to CBS/P. The "salary" is what prompted the lawsuit in the first place. NONE of the other fan films have paid themselves. Star Trek Continues is an official non-profit, with no salary paid to Vic. "They're giving the film away for free". No, they're not. Alec paid himself $38,000. Donators are furious over this, as well as the fact that the movie hasn't even started production yet, and where has the money gone?

This WHOLE THING was centered around the mishandling of money based on CBS/P's IP.

Vic paid $150k of his own money to get STC started. Peters paid himself $38,000. That's horseshit. You don't do that with people's money.

Axanar and Profit or Income or Salary or… – Moby's!

Fan Films have until recently been something that one did out of love with cash out of pocket. You made the film and came out with a net loss. Then came crowdfunding, and it was understood that you could pay the caterer and some other services…BUT NOT YOURSELF! If you got Patrick Stewart to come in and it cost you $5,ooo or some, we get it. He’s a professional, and it was basically OK for him to get a check, or at least reimbursed for travel expenses. But in no case was it ever OK for the guy running things to get a check.
Here's a piece from the guy who was running "Federation Rising", posted earlier today:

https://www.facebook.com/tommykraftf...33891623340104

https://www.facebook.com/groups/CBSvsAxanar/

Quote from James Cawley:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 06:23 PM
 
Lost in Space was fun for me when I was 7. It was cartoonish, but with enough gee whiz that it kept my little pea brain interested. The stories were pretty much aimed at my age group then - and I knew it then.

Then Star Trek happened. The effects were WAY better (even to me at 8 years old) than LiS, and the stories were clearly written for grown up viewers. The production values were as high as Roddenberry could keep them until NBC sabotaged the series with the 3rd season Friday evening time slot, and even then the stories were enough to keep my attention.

Star Trek caused people to think. You can't get much more impactful than that. Nobody decided to work their tail off to be an astronaut because of Lost in Space, and only ONE television show not only interested real rocket scientists, but led many, many more to become rocket scientists. It wasn't on CBS nor created by Irwin Allen.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 07:28 PM
 
You say sabotage, I say sabatage. This never gets old.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2016, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Lost in Space was fun for me when I was 7. It was cartoonish, but with enough gee whiz that it kept my little pea brain interested. The stories were pretty much aimed at my age group then - and I knew it then.

Then Star Trek happened. The effects were WAY better (even to me at 8 years old) than LiS, and the stories were clearly written for grown up viewers. The production values were as high as Roddenberry could keep them until NBC sabotaged the series with the 3rd season Friday evening time slot, and even then the stories were enough to keep my attention.

Star Trek caused people to think. You can't get much more impactful than that. Nobody decided to work their tail off to be an astronaut because of Lost in Space, and only ONE television show not only interested real rocket scientists, but led many, many more to become rocket scientists. It wasn't on CBS nor created by Irwin Allen.
Exactly this.

And carrot people. Don't forget the silly carrot people.

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
May 23, 2016, 12:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
They're also selling Star Trek-related items without giving the profits to CBS/P. The "salary" is what prompted the lawsuit in the first place. NONE of the other fan films have paid themselves. Star Trek Continues is an official non-profit, with no salary paid to Vic. "They're giving the film away for free". No, they're not. Alec paid himself $38,000. Donators are furious over this, as well as the fact that the movie hasn't even started production yet, and where has the money gone?

This WHOLE THING was centered around the mishandling of money based on CBS/P's IP.

Vic paid $150k of his own money to get STC started. Peters paid himself $38,000. That's horseshit. You don't do that with people's money.
Did you know with a not-for-profit you can pay people salaries? All while still being within Fair Use, and it isn't even considered "stealing". There, now you've learned something and we don't have to go through this again. And no, the salaries and paid actors aren't what prompted this, it's the quality of the product; it looks every bit as good as what Paramount is making these days (while being more compelling, to boot).
"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
May 23, 2016, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Did you know with a not-for-profit you can pay people salaries? All while still being within Fair Use, and it isn't even considered "stealing". There, now you've learned something and we don't have to go through this again. And no, the salaries and paid actors aren't what prompted this, it's the quality of the product; it looks every bit as good as what Paramount is making these days (while being more compelling, to boot).
I'm well aware of that.

...but Ares Studios IS NOT A NON-PROFIT. They DO NOT have any 501(c)(3) paperwork filed. Where is their 1023 form which discloses their moneys? No, instead, Axanar's financials are kept SECRET.

There, now YOU learned something.

http://www.startrekcontinues.com/nonprofit.html

In fact, Alec is on record saying last month that STC never filed their 1023. False, because here it is:

http://www.duffylaw.org/tc1023.pdf

So why does Alec keep his "annual report" behind a paywall?

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
May 23, 2016, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I'm well aware of that.

...but Ares Studios IS NOT A NON-PROFIT. They DO NOT have any 501(c)(3) paperwork filed. Where is their 1023 form which discloses their moneys? No, instead, Axanar's financials are kept SECRET.
No you aren't, at all. What you're railing on about doesn't matter, not in terms of what is classified as Fair Use, FFS.

So why does Alec keep his "annual report" behind a paywall?
Because it's none of your business unless you're a producer?
"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
May 23, 2016, 02:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No you aren't, at all. What you're railing on about doesn't matter, not in terms of what is classified as Fair Use, FFS.
So you're a lawyer now? It DOES matter because AP said initially that it was *NOT A FAN FILM*.


Because it's none of your business unless you're a producer?
If he's a non-profit, he's required to publicly post financials.

I work for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Are its financial statements available for public viewing -- especially regarding management salaries?

Indeed. Nonprofits are required to submit their financial statements and other information -- including the salaries of directors, officers, and key employees -- to the IRS. (For information on who is considered a key employee, see IRS Form 990 and its instructions.)

The IRS and nonprofits themselves are required to disclose the information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. Nonprofits must allow public inspection of these records during regular business hours at their principal offices. However, many people won't even need to ask -- a number of websites make Forms 990 available for the searching, including the Foundation Center at http://fdncenter.org and GuideStar at www.guidestar.org.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. A real non-profit wouldn't post their financials where only people who are allowed to see it, can.

Watching from the sidelines doesn't make you some kind of guru on the subject. I've actually talked to people involved. Have you? No.

EDIT: Found this gem just now. Yeah, real ethical:

( Last edited by starman; May 23, 2016 at 02:20 AM. )

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2016, 02:27 AM
 
According to JJ Abrams, the lawsuit will be dropped.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2016, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
According to JJ Abrams, the lawsuit will be dropped.
Where in this video does he say "dropped"?

https://www.facebook.com/anna.yeutte...5029159054625/

Also...



Settlements != dropped

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
May 23, 2016, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
So you're a lawyer now? It DOES matter because AP said initially that it was *NOT A FAN FILM*.

If he's a non-profit, he's required to publicly post financials.
They don't need to be organized as a NPO. Why do you think they do?

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. A real non-profit wouldn't post their financials where only people who are allowed to see it, can.
Because they don't have to be a NPO. Let's see. Do you understand the difference between a NPO and a not-for-profit project? Hmm?

Watching from the sidelines doesn't make you some kind of guru on the subject. I've actually talked to people involved. Have you? No.
I have, actually, I've talked with the Axanar producers directly, on numerous occasions, because I'm a backer (a pretty large one).

EDIT: Found this gem just now. Yeah, real ethical:
WTF does that have to do with ethics? Holy shit, you're so confused it's painful to watch.
"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
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2016, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
According to JJ Abrams, the lawsuit will be dropped.
I'm trying to understand his butthurt, all it does is benefit CBS by getting more Star Trek out to the fans and keep the brand alive (something they've not been doing very well for the last decade).
"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
May 23, 2016, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I have, actually, I've talked with the Axanar producers directly, on numerous occasions, because I'm a backer (a pretty large one).
Oh, NOW it makes sense. You have a financial interest in this whole thing.

Now I want it to never get made more than I did a minute ago.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2016, 03:40 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.
LOL and you couldn't even get THIS part right.

It hasn't even been cast or shot and you're posting this...and a financial backer (and a large one at that)???

Oh, this is HILARIOUS.

This whole time you were a financial backer, and you can't even get your facts right.

I have, actually, I've talked with the Axanar producers directly, on numerous occasions, because I'm a backer (a pretty large one).
I'm SERIOUSLY having a beer in your honor for this screwup.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2016, 03:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
They're also selling Star Trek-related items without giving the profits to CBS/P.
I think this refers to the donor fulfillment doohickeys. If they're actually selling items, I'd be interested. Got a link?

The "salary" is what prompted the lawsuit in the first place. ... Alec paid himself $38,000. ... This WHOLE THING was centered around the mishandling of money based on CBS/P's IP.
I had to think about this for awhile. I'll admit the $38K bothers me. I suppose paying anyone who is working on the film could be OK. Administrative costs should be disclosed up front in the crowdfunding campaign, which would let donors vote with their wallets if a particular pay level is OK. I don't know if it was disclosed up front.

The CBS/Paramount complaints (both original and first amended) talk endlessly about copyright. The word "salary" does not appear in either.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2016, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The CBS/Paramount complaints (both original and first amended) talk endlessly about copyright. The word "salary" does not appear in either.
His rage has made him irrational, it doesn't surprise me that he's seeing things.
"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
May 23, 2016, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think this refers to the donor fulfillment doohickeys. If they're actually selling items, I'd be interested. Got a link?



I had to think about this for awhile. I'll admit the $38K bothers me. I suppose paying anyone who is working on the film could be OK. Administrative costs should be disclosed up front in the crowdfunding campaign, which would let donors vote with their wallets if a particular pay level is OK. I don't know if it was disclosed up front.

The CBS/Paramount complaints (both original and first amended) talk endlessly about copyright. The word "salary" does not appear in either.
It wasn't disclosed up front.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/axanar#/

As for the money:

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

Amended complaint, page 41

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-conte...ar-Klingon.pdf

The Axanar store is behind a paywall, but here's a video of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOnoPTKDUU0

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
 
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 10:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,