The back-and-forth between Paramount and CBS (both owned by Viacom) and the makers of Star Trek fan film Star Trek: Axanar has taken yet another weird turn, resulting in the Viacom subsidiaries sending Star Trek fan creators a list of guidelines under which fan creations can continue to be made.
The guidelines are prefaced with an open letter, posted on StarTrek.com:
Dear Star Trek fans,
Star Trek fandom is like no other.
Your support, enthusiasm and passion are the reasons that Star Trek has flourished for five decades and will continue long into the future. You are the reason the original Star Trek series was rescued and renewed in 1968, and the reason it has endured as an iconic and multi-generational phenomenon that has spawned seven television series and 13 movies.
Throughout the years, many of you have expressed your love for the franchise through creative endeavors such as fan films. So today, we want to show our appreciation by bringing fan films back to their roots.
The heart of these fan films has always been about expressing one’s love and passion for Star Trek. They have been about fan creativity and sharing unique stories with other fans to show admiration for the TV shows and movies. These films are a labor of love for any fan with desire, imagination and a camera.
We want to support this innovation and encourage celebrations of this beloved cultural phenomenon. It is with this perspective in mind that we are introducing a set of guidelines at Star Trek Fan Films.
Thank you for your ongoing and steadfast enthusiasm and support, which ensure that Star Trek will continue to inspire generations to come.
CBS and Paramount Pictures
The letter links to the complete set of guidelines here.
CBS and Paramount Pictures are big believers in reasonable fan fiction and fan creativity, and, in particular, want amateur fan filmmakers to showcase their passion for Star Trek. Therefore, CBS and Paramount Pictures will not object to, or take legal action against [emphasis mine], Star Trek fan productions that are non-professional and amateur and meet the following guidelines.
The promise of legal action makes these fan creation guidelines the latest move in the ongoing dispute between Paramount and the creators of Star Trek: Axanar. To summarize: Axanar Productions raised over $630,000 on Kickstarter (well past their goal of $100,000) to fund a Star Trek: Axanar feature film which would depict an original story based on an event in the 50-years long lore of the show. The amount attracted the attention of Paramount Pictures, who filed suit claiming infringement on the Star Trek trademarks and rights which they own. Axanar countered, asking Paramount to specify the trademarks and trade dress being infringed. Paramount obliged and it looked like the studio and Axanar Productions were heading to court until Star Trek movie directors J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin lobbied Paramount to drop the suit, claiming that the dispute was now doing greater harm to the widespread public opinion of the franchise than a fan film ever could.
The matter seemed settled until today, with CBS and Paramount’s release of the fan creation guidelines:
Guidelines for Avoiding Objections:
- The fan production must be less than 15 minutes for a single self-contained story, or no more than 2 segments, episodes or parts, not to exceed 30 minutes total, with no additional seasons, episodes, parts, sequels or remakes.
- The title of the fan production or any parts cannot include the name “Star Trek.” However, the title must contain a subtitle with the phrase: “A STAR TREK FAN PRODUCTION” in plain typeface. The fan production cannot use the term “official” in either its title or subtitle or in any marketing, promotions or social media for the fan production.
- The content in the fan production must be original, not reproductions, recreations or clips from any Star Trek production. If non-Star Trek third party content is used, all necessary permissions for any third party content should be obtained in writing.
- If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek uniforms, accessories, toys and props, these items must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products.
- The fan production must be a real “fan” production, i.e., creators, actors and all other participants must be amateurs, cannot be compensated for their services, and cannot be currently or previously employed on any Star Trek series, films, production of DVDs or with any of CBS or Paramount Pictures’ licensees.
- The fan production must be non-commercial:
- CBS and Paramount Pictures do not object to limited fundraising for the creation of a fan production, whether 1 or 2 segments and consistent with these guidelines, so long as the total amount does not exceed $50,000, including all platform fees, and when the $50,000 goal is reached, all fundraising must cease.
- The fan production must only be exhibited or distributed on a no-charge basis and/or shared via streaming services without generating revenue.
- The fan production cannot be distributed in a physical format such as DVD or Blu-ray.
- The fan production cannot be used to derive advertising revenue including, but not limited to, through for example, the use of pre or post-roll advertising, click-through advertising banners, that is associated with the fan production.
- No unlicensed Star Trek-related or fan production-related merchandise or services can be offered for sale or given away as premiums, perks or rewards or in connection with the fan production fundraising.
- The fan production cannot derive revenue by selling or licensing fan-created production sets, props or costumes.
- The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity, or any material that is offensive, fraudulent, defamatory, libelous, disparaging, sexually explicit, threatening, hateful, or any other inappropriate content. The content of the fan production cannot violate any individual’s right of privacy.
- The fan production must display the following disclaimer in the on-screen credits of the fan productions and on any marketing material including the fan production website or page hosting the fan production:“Star Trek and all related marks, logos and characters are solely owned by CBS Studios Inc. This fan production is not endorsed by, sponsored by, nor affiliated with CBS, Paramount Pictures, or any other Star Trek franchise, and is a non-commercial fan-made film intended for recreational use. No commercial exhibition or distribution is permitted. No alleged independent rights will be asserted against CBS or Paramount Pictures.”
- Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.
- Fan productions cannot create or imply any association or endorsement by CBS or Paramount Pictures.
CBS and Paramount Pictures reserve the right to revise, revoke and/or withdraw these guidelines at any time in their own discretion. These guidelines are not a license and do not constitute approval or authorization of any fan productions or a waiver of any rights that CBS or Paramount Pictures may have with respect to fan fiction created outside of these guidelines.
The guidelines are extremely strict in regards to usage of materials, actors, and trademarks related to Star Trek. Under these guidelines, Star Trek: Axanar and other popular fan film creations such as Star Trek: Renegades, Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, and Star Trek: New Voyages would have to cease production and distribution immediately. The productions listed in this paragraph, as well as others, have all featured or continue to feature cast and crew from Star Trek television shows and movies. In fact, at this point in the ongoing evolution of Star Trek fan creations, it is difficult to think of a production or creation that doesn’t violate these guidelines. As such, CBS and Paramount’s release resembles a blanket cease-and-desist order more than it does a workable list of guidelines.
Nevertheless, CBS and Paramount are squarely within their legal rights to issue these guidelines. They own the trademark and trade dress to Star Trek and its constituent parts, and they are demonstrably investing time and resources into updating and working with those trademarks, producing a new TV show and a new movie this year. Star Trek: Axanar is clearly utilizing trade dress owned by Paramount and CBS, and the sheer amount raised through Kickstarter prompts reasonable doubt as to whether Axanar Production is receiving income by infringing on Paramount’s ownership of the trade dress.
Axanar Productions is unique in the Star Trek fan creation world: being arguably the only entity to raise enough money to launch a production on the same scale as a major television or movie studio. At that point, are Paramount and CBS then obligated to defend their ownership of Star Trek? Legally, the answer leans towards “yes”, but the answer in regards to nurturing the stories and fanbase of Star Trek is not as clear. Star Trek lives because its fans never gave up. They fought for a second season of the original series, and fought even harder for a third. They created fan conventions to carry the torch and spread the word. They essentially kept the Roddenberry family afloat post-Trek by purchasing Star Trek memorabilia through their company. Star Trek fans have always had a developed sense of ownership in the series and its elements. It is a core aspect of Star Trek, and one that Roddenberry himself constantly nurtured.
Paramount/CBS’s guidelines have a chilling effect on that sense of ownership. Is this the best response that Paramount and CBS could have made? And what will the fanbase’s response be?
The controversy continues to unfold. On June 29th, CBS representative John Van Citters will be discussing the guidelines on an episode of Engage: The Official Star Trek Podcast.
I find the rules perfectly reasonable. There only needs to be rules because of what Axanar did. If you’re going to play in someone else’s playground, you need to abide by their rules. The only reason all these fan productions came into existence is because Star Trek hasn’t been on TV in 15 years. That’s changing in January. They were all terrible anyway.
Legally they may be in the right. But many of those restrictions make them scum and will kill fan goodwill. They are trying to get fans to jump through the not-inconsiderable hoop of subscribing to their awful pay-per-month to stream our stuff service. It’s going to push some long time fans over the line from ‘maybe I’ll subscribe’ to ‘nope, they hate us why should we pay them’
I would hope older productions could be “grandfathered in.” But I agree – it’s likely to create ill will with fans especially if already produced shows are forced offline.
I’m on the fence about the new TV show anyway. When they advertised “New Villains,” all I could think was, Why does Star Trek need villains? It sounds like a super hero comic. (I don’t have anything against Super Hero Comics but that’s a different genre.)
And I’m definitely waiting for reviews before considering buying a ticket for the next movie.
The fan productions are about the only way I’ve been able to watch anything new that resembles Star Trek. I think Paramount/CBS should be working on some guidelines – for themselves – about fixing that problem.
They’ve left a void that the fans have tried diligently to fill.
As rules regarding the use of Intellectual Property, they don’t seem too egregious. As I understand it, Paramount and CBS need to publically control how Star Trek is used to keep any control over it at all. Rules are stupid but they still need to play by them.
As rules regarding a cultural artifact, they’re horrendous. While I recognize the total lack of legal basis for it, I want to say that Star Trek is ours now and we should be able to play with it as we choose. Well, at least within fairly broad restrictions. I don’t mind their desire to keep “official” productions separate from “fan” ones; if only to make clear what the canon baseline is. But the other restrictions seemed designed to cripple fan’s attempts to tell high-quality stories. Bother.
Star Trek Continues actually has done some fantastic episodes. With guest actors from other Star Trek creations.
They’ve recently become an official not-for-profit corporation. And just finished an indiegogo campaign: “To Boldly Indiegogo”. It seems this would affect them too. :(
Are we at the point yet where we can admit that Intellectual Property law does more to harm society than it does to help it?
The real problem is copyright law. It used to be that content creators got 28 years of protection, then 56 years, then 75 years, and now it’s either life plus 70 years, or 95 years after first publication for works for hire. The number of extensions and special provisions makes the whole thing terribly confusing (see for example http://www.arthurconandoyle.com/copyrights.html)
Many people view the most recent extension (The Sonny Bono copyright extension act of 1998) as a lifeline to Disney who were about to face the expiration of the first copyrights on Mickey Mouse.
Copyright creates an incentive for content creators to have exclusive rights to benefit from their content, but it is supposed to be for a limited time. Mary Bono is quoted as saying that Sonny wanted copyright to “last forever.” Imagine a world where Shakespeare or Jules Verne or HG Wells were off limits without paying a handsome fee to their estates, or where the estate could simply say, “we have enough money for now. No Shakespeare anywhere this year.”
Under the law as it existed up until 1976, the original Star Trek would be public domain in just a few years, and anyone could make continuing adventures (of the original series) without restrictions.
If you really want to play in the Star Trek universe, you follow the rules of the people who own it, or you change the copyright laws back to a more sensible term that re-balances the interests of corporate producers versus ordinary consumers.
Of course, life plus 70 years is very lucrative for businesses like Tor and authors like many of the contributors here.
@7: That’s very interesting. It bring up the question of when content ceases to be owned by the creator and starts being owned by the company.
These rules sound like they’re saying, “You can make fanfilms, as long as they suck.”
I don’t know if Roddenberry’s “nurturing” of the fanbase should be separated too far from the point you make in the same sentence that fandom kept his bills paid. There is little evidence that he cared much about what anyone other than he did with the franchise.
I’m sure most of “fandom” will support CBS/Paramount, because they don’t really care about the heart of Star Trek. My family, however, will no longer go to Star Trek movies, or watch the “new” Star Trek when it comes to CBS. I have a complete collection of pre-JJ Star Trek TV shows and movies – after that, the series died (IMHO). Star Trek Continues was a great set of 6 videos that captured the heart of Star Trek in a special way – and I now have those too.
Not a fan of these new rules.
I absolutely LOVE Star Trek Phase II (ST:NV) and Star Trek Continues.
They both put out episodes at about an hour length, i.e. the length of an “official” episode of Star Trek. How will these new rules affect my two favorite Star Trek fan (fam) productions.
These rules seem like absolute rubbish to me.
Paramount, as a lifelong fan, I feel like you’ve kicked sand into my face.
With love,
The Infinite
@8, the question is when it becomes public domain, which Hollywood has specifically frustrated for the last century.
I can’t fault them for fighting shy of effectively turning their IP over into the public domain. What if Fox want to do their own version? It’s not obvious how it would really differ in kind from the Axanar project!
Right. So, piss off. We’ll call it something different. And then when you try and sue us for IP infringement. We’ll cite all the other “Sci-Fi in the future, aboard a spaceship, tooling around the galaxy” as ‘precedence’ for nullifying said lawsuit.
Oh…wait…those were probably all owned by CBS/Paramount subsidiaries.
So, CBS/Paramount, what you’re REALLY saying is we need to force our legislation to pass a bill (or be recalled and kicked out of a job) breaking up Hollywood (since it’s run by like 4 companies now; each with dozens of shell companies subsidiaries).
@13: To prevent that, wouldn’t it be sufficient to demand that it has to be non-commercial (rule 6)?
I find rules 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10 mostly ok.
Rules 1, 3, 4, and 5 are outrageous.
Rule 7 is weird. I mean… alcohol? Wasn’t there plenty of that in the original show? Harmful or illegal activities? Does that apply to villains too?
It takes a lot to put together a video.
A lot of talent, a lot of determination, a lot of luck, a lot of skill, a lot of love – and a LOT of money.
Rule #6’s fundraising restrictions will put an end to any more of this fan video.
#7: Actually, there’s a second real problem here, and it’s one that has been hovering on the edge of the Hollywood media imperium for awhile now. It’s that the technology for making and distributing quality film/video programming has become sufficiently inexpensive, and sufficiently accessible, that you don’t need major corporate backing to produce a quality feature film or “TV” serial. In absolute terms, that backing still helps, but the plain fact is that it’s now a lot harder to tell fan-produced video from studio-produced video just by looking at it.
What the Axanar fundraising campaign demonstrates is a logical follow-on from what Joss Whedon showed us with Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog not so long ago, and what Felicia Day has accomplished with Geek & Sundry: namely, that it’s now possible for independent video content to compete head-to-head with corporate-produced video content…and that sometimes, the indie material will “win”. This is dangerous enough to the Hollywood establishment when the indie work is original; when the indie content is fanwork derived from a franchise as big as Star Trek, Hollywood can’t possibly allow it to succeed…because if that happens, the entire financial sandbox that’s corporate film-making might just implode. This is clearly why the CBS/Paramount guidelines include that length/stand-alone rule; they really, really don’t want anyone besides themselves producing “full-length” TV-style episodic/serial stories.
If I were involved in creating Trek-related fan video, I’d be most worried about two other clauses aside from that one. One is #7; as has been noted, the content restrictions seem to me over-broad (if you can’t depict illegal acts, you pretty much can’t use any plot involving an actual villain). The other, interestingly, is #9. CBS/Paramount is absolutely correct in wanting to disallow registration of trademarks by fan creators…but registration of copyright is another matter entirely, and while I Am Not A Lawyer, if I were in the fan video game I would absolutely want to register my Star Trek fanvid — not to try and steal IP from CBS, but to ensure that other fan creators couldn’t steal IP from me. (As a practical matter, I think the right answer to that one might be a joint registration acknowledging that both CBS/Paramount and a given fan creator have copyright interests in the work being registered; it would be capital-I Interesting working out the legalese there, but I think it’s probably both doable and desirable.)
Holy crap Batman™ ~ that was an amateur film???? I was enthralled! I can see why Paramount and CBS were a bit peeved about the fundraising and ensuing “prologue” that would lead to a “feature fan film” complete with some amazing makeup and good special effects.
The film makers for this fan film, should just make it into a sci-fi movie. I honestly would like to see more!
I was somewhat amused by the “no profanity” rule, considering that it seems to be perfectly okay to blow up a planet but no swearing allowed *rolls eyes*
The length of copyright does seem to be unduly long, especially the “life plus 70-years”. Am quite thankful Bono didn’t get his wish to have copyright last forever.@@@@@DyanneNova #6 is exactly right: How sad would it be to not be allowed to produce a Shakespearean play because the copyright never ran out.
Para 5 seems onerous as well and legally unenforceable unless each and every actor, technician and anyone else down to the cleaning staff unless they’ve signed a non-compete contract previously.
I’M not sure the old fifty years and it’s in the public domain applies when the copyright holder continues to use the material in question. IIRC it only applies if the character et al has not been used at all. So Paramount which has continued to use this material in series and films retains full usage to this day.
IT’s Axanar that caused this by asserting they were making a pressionally made feature film and paying salaries which meant Paramount had to exert its control or lose it.
@21: Well, “fifty years and it’s public domain” doesn’t apply AT ALL because the laws were changed, but once the first episode enters the public domain, in my understanding, it doesn’t matter that they’re continuing to use it… it’s in the public domain. That’s it. But, there’s a catch… well, actually, there’s a couple a) only the individual episodes that are in public domain are there, so if (hypothetically, although this would only be the case if there was some bizarre timing loophole) if only the first 15 episodes of the original Star Trek were public domain, using the Shuttlecraft (which first appeared in episode 16) could get you sued, using the Klingons (first appeared in episode 27) could get you sued, and so on, especially for anything in Next Gen and beyond. And presumably if you were making money off it, they’d have somebody who’s sole job was to watch your stuff for any elements that still belong to them, and threaten to sue you for it.
And, catch b), and perhaps more importantly: The WORK is in the public domain, but TRADEMARKS don’t expire as long as they’re being used. So let’s say all of TOS was PD, then you could produce your own series based on it (being careful to avoid anything TNG or beyond)… but you’re not allowed to call it Star Trek, or refer to it being even a Star Trek spinoff, because Star Trek is a trademarked title. You probably couldn’t produce merchandise with things like “Klingon” in the description (because that word with respect to action figures is still trademarked by Paramount’s licensees). You could still call them that in the show itself, but you might not be able to advertise with it, for fear of violating trademark. So you could have a show that’s called “Voyage Through The Blackness of Space!” that tells the tales of Kirk, Spock and McCoy through the Enterprise, and people might still find you, but it’s harder to attract people to you, if the company is being vigilant.
There’s also, sorta, a c) in that in some circumstances it may be possible where something is in public domain, but the material it’s based on isn’t. Like, for example, the Fleischer Superman cartoons. I think in that case you may be able to reproduce the original cartoon, but not make derivative works (though even if you could you’d have to be abide by a) and b) anyway)).
I think it’s kind of funny, that CBS is effectively forbidding the creators of quality sci fi to associate their stuff with CBS’s own crap.
To this I say: let them have it their own way. As a fan or real (pre-2009) Trek it pains me to say this, but the words “Star Trek” no longer mean what they used to mean. NuTrek isn’t seeking new life and new civilizations, nor does is it provide any meaningful social commentary. Whether we like it or not, “Star Trek” is now a franchise of popcorn movies and a pay-per-view TV show.
So perhaps the time is ripe to continue the legacy with something completely new. Grand ideas like “an optimistic depiction of a peaceful future while making deep social commentary” are not copyrightable, and you don’t really need the Enterprise or Klingons or Captain Kirk to weave these grand ideas into compelling sci fi.
And if CBS are so dedicated to distance their brand and the words “Star Trek” from this legacy, it’s their loss.
@17:
That clause is perfectly legitimate, and here’s why: if the writers of a future episode of CBS Star Trek come up with a plot even vaguely similar, or a character that could be construed to be based on the fan film character and plot, and the fan film was allowed to be produced by CBS, and was subsequently copyrighted by the fan filmmaker… then the fan film maker would be able to sue CBS for copyright infringement.
That clause is a NECESSARY one, if fan films or fan fiction are to ever get made given current IP law.
Its the same reason most music publishers and record companies no longer accept unsolicited songs from unknown songwriters. To many lawsuits of copyright infringement. So, even though something like that has rarely happened in video production, because there is case law on the books in a related industry, CBS’s IP lawyers would never allow fan fiction to be made without that clause.
RE: Copyright length
Its life of creator + 70 years for works created by individuals.For a company, copyright is currently 120 years from creation. But that is relatively new. For shows created prior to 1978, it was 70 years. And shorter than that when movies were first produced.
But even then, we’re talking copyright, not trademarks.
I… I really don’t know where I stand on this… I do know that beyond amateur, for fun fan fiction (whatever its format, writen, video, audio, etc), when it comes to professionally made or aiming-to-be-pro productions, I believe as a creator that it’s better to dedicate yourself to your own creations (even inspired or informed by Star Trek or whatever) than to continue to make stuff directly based on other people’s properties.
@19 – WDWParksGal: Axanar? No, that’s not an amateur production, it’s an unofficial production, but it’s not at all amateur, as it’s made by film industry professionals, IIRC.
@20 – dhtechs: I’m certain they couldn’t enforce it in the sense of prohibiting former/current Star Trek actors/crew from working on the films… but they could bring down the “non-approved” hammer on any fan production that employed someone who has worked in official Star Trek productions.
#24: The problem you cite is real, but it’s not a problem that arises directly from registration of copyright. The issue is that a copyright interest, registered or not, implicitly exists in any creative work whether or not the work is derivative. This is why most professional writers of either prose fiction or scripted media won’t read (or at least won’t admit to reading) fanfiction based on works they’ve created.
[Key technical neep: the specific benefits of registering one’s copyright under US law — which involves paying a small fee to the Copyright Office — primarily arise if and when infringement of that copyright occurs. It makes infringement easier to prove in court, and greatly increases the damages one receives if a judgment is entered against an infringer.]
Few to no prose fanfic writers register their works — though there’s no real legal reason they couldn’t do so — but the potential for exactly the issue you cite to arise remains. That’s what was at the heart of the well-known fanfiction controversy in which the late Marion Zimmer Bradley was embroiled. While a number of the details of that case remain murky, the central issue therein was that MZB had read a fanwork involving some of the same characters and situations she had wanted to develop in one of her Darkover novels…and even though the fanwork was derivative, and even though copyright in the work had not been registered, the fan had a defensible copyright interest in the derivative work she’d created.
This is why I suggested above that a joint copyright registration might be appropriate in the case of the sort of “authorized” fanworks CBS/Paramount is proposing. There are sound reasons why CBS/Paramount wouldn’t want such a fanwork to be registered independently — but there are equally sound reasons why they should want the work to be registered, (a) as a means of documenting their ownership of the parent copyright and (b), as a means of establishing their right (as owners of the parent copyright) to exploit aspects of a given derivative work in future “official” material should they choose to do so.
#20/#26: Actually, the issues that arise for Hollywood professionals participating in fanworks mostly revolve around what their unions allow them to do without having to be paid union-negotiated fees/salaries for that work.
Having firsthand experience with Paramount’s heavy hand, I am not at all surprised by these ridiculous rules.If one were to carve a Mt. Rushmore-like sculpture into Paramount’s mountain logo, it would be a raised middle finger.
After all, this IS the same company that once tried to shut down every single Star Trek fan website. There is no company in history that despises its customers as much as Paramount.
I prefer George Lucas’s attitude towards people playing in the Star Wars sandbox: do whatever you want, as long as you don’t make money from it. I suspect that’s probably changed since Disney’s acquisition of the IP.
It would be a shame to lose Star Trek Continues. Such a great show!! I wish CBS could just roll them over to the streaming service.
I don’t see the problem with them. They won’t affect the way I interact with fandom in the slightest, and they won’t affect most fans doing fan stuff either.
#17: What Alec Peters did with Axanar was and is wrong, and we are all suffering the consequences. That blame’s to be laid at his feet, not at Paramount or CBS’s. And if you and others are so pissed off about copyright law in this case, do a flip mode and imaging the shoe being on the other foot; what would happen if your IP/creation was being profited off/used WITHOUT REWARDING YOU FINANCIALLY? How would YOU feel? And what would YOU do about it?
Come to think about it, are any of you so pissed off that you’ll be writing your Congressperson/Senator to do something about these copyright laws? Boycotting the new movie and TV show won’t do anything; fans like you and OmicronThetaDeltaPhi are a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of movie goers that love the new movies and will be watching the upcoming TV show. Your boycotting (if you-John C.-and others like OmicronThetaDeltaPh are doing this) might also piss off other fans of the Star Trek franchise that have grown from watching the new movies and reading the comic books/buying the toys,etc. based on said new movies (and people like you were likely the ones who wanted new Star Trek movies and TV shows to begin with.)
It’s time to accept the fact that the franchise doesn’t ‘belong’ to you, nor is it ‘owned’ by you, and you can’t make profits off of it with fan films, fan art, or fan fiction; you all can either partake of it, or find something else to watch.
@27:
That is very true. Your technical neep is what I was driving at though. Kindle Worlds has solved this problem by having the fan fic authors license all of their work back in to the franchise. So, basically, their license states “You can write this, we’ll even pay you royalties for it, but you are allowing anything you create to be reused by the creator of the franchise you are writing in.”
I really have no problem with this. So they made rules for how you use their toys? That cant stop you from doing your own space opera. Do that.
I saw the trailer for the new Star Trek movie last night before Apoc, and what struck me is how little time they look to be spending in space, 75% or more of the trailer took place on sets in on planets…ehhh,..it’s STAR Trek.
While Paramount may be legally justified in taking what look (to the fan base) as fairly Draconian measures to protect their IP, they are implicitly telling most of the fans who campaigned for the original series and its followups, “You don’t matter; your demographics are uninteresting to us and we require fresh meat. The audience we want to attract wants big explosions and could care less about original plots, so that’s what we’ll give them.” Paramount should not be surprised if that group of fans attempt to take matters into their own hands and create films that are more to their taste. It’s something like attempting to outlaw aftermarket car parts, especially if OEM parts are no longer being manufactured.
/glyph of puzzlement/
#31: I’m not p***ed off at anyone in particular, and I have at least a toe on both sides of this fence. Many, many moons ago I wrote a Sherlock Holmes/Star Trek fanfic story which was published in a (gasp!) printzine specializing in such things. (This is not even a small secret, as in that era of fandom, people bylined their fanworks with their real names, and the juggernaut that is scholarly Holmesian fandom has long since ensured that anyone who’s ever published a Holmes pastiche has been immortalized via online bibliography.) OTOH, I have also been a part of the professional genre SF/F community, and thereby gotten to know (mostly electronically) a number of Hollywood creative professionals over the years.
Except that talking about fences these days amounts to using the wrong metaphor, because the lines between the fan and professional creative communities are increasingly vague, fuzzy, and difficult to draw with any sort of either usefulness or accuracy. I know, or know of, pro writers who’ve continued to write and post fanfic while selling novels to New York or writing for network TV shows. I’ve read awful novels from commercial publishers and amazing ones on fan sites. High-level Hollywood pros are doing their own thing with micro-budget productions, outsiders’ micro-budget productions are going viral and attracting non-trivial audiences, and veteran SAG-signatory actors are popping up in fan-produced Star Trek videos. (Who wants to tell them they can’t be fans of the shows they were in? Not me….)
My point is simply that the legal status of fanworks — whether prose or audiovisual — is nothing if not immensely complicated, to the extent that even agreeing on what constitutes “fairness” is difficult. And I have done my best to avoid taking a “side” as such in discussions of this kind, because I think that to the extent that there are sides in this kettle of tribbles, they’re not the obvious ones.
#32: The key feature of Kindle Worlds, however, is that hardly anyone actually writes for it. (The most popular fandom in Kindle Worlds is The Vampire Diaries, with 207 works available, whereas Fanfiction.Net shows 1500 works available for that fandom, and the Archive of Our Own shows nearly 6000.)
#31: you’re absolutely right in that Star Trek does not belong to me. It’s owned by CBS and Paramount, not by the fans who love the franchise, however much they might be devoted to it.
However I object to you calling out a ‘boycott’ as something that will necessarily offend new blood in the fandom, as though it’s somehow hypocritical for fans to want more Star Trek and then turn our backs on it.
Here’s the thing: I love Star Trek’s traditions of exploration, adventure, diplomacy, and striving to find similarities underneath superficial differences. By these metrics, what CBS are currently producing might well be called Star Trek, but it is dissimilar enough to the Star Trek I grew up with and fell in love with that I feel the franchise is no longer what it once was. Am I obligated to patronize Beyond and the new movie just because I am a Star Trek fan and they have Star Trek on the title? Surely the act of consuming product is predicated on the ability to discern what is and isn’t ‘for me’?
New fans are welcome to this vision of Trek and I’ll do my best to not begrudge them that, but I want science fiction in the vein of TNG and DS9, work that is speculative and transformative rather than derivative action-fests. The problem there is that establishing one’s own identity is very difficult given that startup funding is difficult to come by unless you crowdfund, and if you crowdfund your project is much more vulnerable to unforeseen setbacks – the more of those you have, the harder you have to work to make sure your production is above and beyond, or those who invested in your startup will see any flaw as a waste of their investment for what was produced in the end. (Check the comments of any high-end Kickstarter with production delays for what I mean – Google Mighty No.9 and Exalted 3rd Edition for two major examples from different areas of media)
It is tragic that Axanar sought to profit off material they did not own and build a production company under false pretenses, but these guidelines are sufficiently dogmatic, limiting and self-contradictory that they cripple any independent work seeking to embrace and uphold the sci-fi they love. You might call it laziness to do that off the back of an established IP, but the appeal of fandom is the ability to tell our own stories in a shared setting – having to create one ourselves can be more difficult than many give credit for, particularly in an age of modern entertainment when there truly is nothing new under the sun. How does one avoid a lawsuit for similarities to Star Trek, when Star Trek single-handedly defined the genre as we see it today? Many of the traditions, tropes and aesthetics of the genre across forms of media tie back into Trek in some way, including but not limited to the transposition of Navy bureaucratic architecture to spaceflight and the treatment by the writers of space combat as naval (particularly submarine) warfare. Even aesthetically, many science-fiction properties draw costume design inspiration and homages from the various iterations of Trek uniforms and aliens. Any science fiction property that on top of that calls to Star Trek’s original mission statement will almost certainly be under close scrutiny by CBS.
This is bad for the franchise. It limits creative themes generated by fan diversity including those outside the US. It limits the expansion of the Star Trek marketplace so as to benefit a small Cadre with corporate America. In fact it is a good example of how corporations utilitize and manipulate the law to establish oligopolis and strangle competition and inhibit job growth.
Alec Peters is indeed in the wrong, but this doesn’t make Paramount or CBS any more right. They could have (and should have) sued the guy into bankruptcy, because he was bluntly trying to make a profit off their intellectual property (and selling merchendise, for crying out loud! What is this guy thinking?!).
But punishing loyal fans who do their work out of love (Renegades, Star Trek Continues, New Voyages, Horizon, Yorktown etc.) for the acts of one greedy guy makes absolutely no sense. Especially since it is these loyal fans which keep the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s vision alive.
I’m sorry, but CBS/Paramount do not own the cultural phanomenon of Star Trek. They may own the franchise and the intellectual property, but they do not own Roddenberry’s vision. I’ll hastily add that the fans do not own it either. But the fans actually care about preseving what Gene created, while CBS/Paramount are betraying everything classical Trek stood for.
And just because they have the technical legal right to do this, does not make it okay.
I’m sure you’re right, but you’re missing the point. I’m not “boycotting” anything. I’m simply not interested in what “Star Trek” has become in the past 7 years.
I’m a huge fan of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first ten movies (yes, even Nemesis). I’m even a bigger fan of the general Roddenberry vision, which all of the above – to a greater or lesser degree – adhered too.
But Paramount isn’t doing this kind of sci fi anymore. And what’s worse, since they came up with these “fan film guidelines”, they’re effectively waging war against the fans who do want to fill this void.
So what choice do we have, but to start afresh? I don’t want to stop associating my life-long love for “utopian and thought provoking sci fi” with the name “Star Trek”, but the recent legal threats by Paramount and CBS are giving me no choice.
By hiring a legal advisor who is an expert on these things, who will tell you what you can and cannot do safely – from an IP point of view. You’ll be surprised at how many things become non-issues, once a legal expert looks over them (in music, for example, it is often sufficient to make slight varations on a melody to avoid any copyright issues).
But you know something? Even if we ignore the legal issues, I’m not sure that “trying to imitate classical Trek as closely as possible” would be a good idea. Perhaps this should be taken as an opportunity to do something really new. Take the general idea of “an optimistic view of the future while making social commentary” into a completely different direction.
(as a small example: why insist on having the trope of “submarine warfare in space”, when it makes absolutely no scientific sense what-so-ever?)
Apparently I’m not the only person who has realized that the only way out is to start afresh:
The Renegades team decided to comply with the new guidlines by removing all Star Trek references from their production
While I am disappointed by this action, I’m not surprised. Particularly after CBS demanded (about five years ago) that the Android Tricorder app be removed from the marketplace, despite a condition in Gene Roddenberry’s contract stating that if anyone ever created a device that could do what a tricorder did, they could use the name. Tricorder app removed from Market
I know I’m not alone in my disgust with the new “Star Trek” reboots coming out of Hollywood (I have to put it in quotes because it is so far from the Star Trek that I know and love that I have a hard time associating it in my mind). This just solidifies the decision that I will not be seeing any additional “Star Trek”-like productions coming out of Paramount or CBS.
I am a backer of Star Trek: Renegades. I loved Star Trek: Of Gods and Men. These productions are great examples of what can be done by fans, and neither of them could have been made under these rules (particularly since they have a ton of old Star Trek actors). If you haven’t seen them, see them quickly before the lawyers make them go away.
@34/DougL: “I saw the trailer for the new Star Trek movie […], and what struck me is how little time they look to be spending in space, 75% or more of the trailer took place on sets in on planets”
I like that. A lot of TV episodes took place on alien planets, especially in TOS, and it has hardly ever been done in the films.
@33/roblewmac: “So they made rules for how you use their toys? That cant stop you from doing your own space opera. Do that.”
But that isn’t the same thing, is it? I don’t watch fan films, but I still enjoy the fact that people make them, especially those that recreate TOS (are there groups that recreate later Trek shows?). It seems like a very endearing variety of fandom. And the fact that CBS/Paramount didn’t object in the past made them look good too.
Anyway, I wanted to write a followup to my earlier comment #15, where I tried to separate the guidelines I find understandable from the ones I find excessive. I called the latter “outrageous”, and that was a bad choice of words. As others have pointed out, the people who own Star Trek don’t need to allow fans to make films. They’re under no obligation to be nice. So, not outrageous – but still a pity.
Yeah. Pretty much the only reason we had left for watching this crap called NuTrek was our deep loyalty to brand.
But with their last few moves (these “guidelines” being the last straw) Paramount and CBS left us no reason to remain loyal. On the contrary: They are slowly but firmly positioning themselves as an actual adversary of Roddenberry’s vision.
The “tricorder” incident that Jan mentioned is a small example of this. Paramount and CBS have created a pretty surreal situation, where associating our vision-for-a-better-future with “Star Trek” is actually hindering humanity’s progress.
So, what is the proper Roddenberrean response to this situation? Funny how this entire situation feels like a classic Star Trek plot. Do we throw the brand “Star Trek” to the dogs and start anew, or do we drag ourselves into a very unTrekkian conflict with CBS and Paramount?
As Kirk once said:
“I will accept neither of those alternatives, gentlemen. I’m putting you gentlemen on the hot seat with me. I want that third alternative.”
@31
The thing is, it’s not Paramount’s or CBS’s creation. They didn’t create Star Trek. They’re corporations profiting off IP that they purchased, and dare get offended when other people attempt to profit off it? Hypocritical, much?
This is why I agree with most others in this thread that IP and copyright laws are to blame. I do think the actual creator of IP deserves some protections, but once it’s been sold/purchased/timed out then it should be fair game, and not after 100 years or more.
The most absurd thing to me about the way Paramount/CBS act is that overall it hurts them more. They act like money is a zero sum equation–that if Axanar is making money then it’s taking from their “share” of the pie. The only way that’s true is if your product sucks and the other one is far better, in which case using the law to protect crappy products is the epitome of crony capitalism and everything that is wrong with our system.
But, if you make a quality product, then having other entities make quality products in the same category should only encourage interest, and thereby bring more people into the arena, and thus, more money.
Now obviously there could be issues when someone uses your IP and makes a really bad product, or one that defames your original. In that case I think legal action could be warranted. However, that is clearly not the case here: Paramount and CBS just want money, and don’t want others to make money especially not indie/crowdfunded, and that is all.
Obviously it is a complicated issue, but I have and will be writing my congressmen about copyright laws. I hope others do the same.
I love it how many people are already sure the new TV show will suck…
@31 – Dusty Ayres: I agree with you up to a certain point, but there’s a diference between a creator being denied profit from his work, and a corporation hogging it for the rest of eternity.
@42 – Jana: I love it that they’ll be spending time on an alien planet, since nuTrek (or “the Kelvin Timeline”, as it’s now called) does not have a TV show to stand on, the adventures they can have should bne more like this; as oppossed to the TOS movies where their movies were just grand adventures having to do with their old TV show foes than standard Starflet exploration plots.
@43 – Omicron: “So, what is the proper Roddenberrean response to this situation?”
I don’t know, getting drunk, hitting on some dames, and trying to steal credit away from someone else?
@46 – I’m not sure the new TV show will suck (although Alex Kurtzman’s involvement on any level isn’t reassuring — and seems to suggest some link with the Kelvin Timeline and Abrams-verse — which is even less reassuring.) I’m interested that they’re working with Nicholas Meyer, who apparently was able to distill the best parts of TOS in an amazingly short period of time.
I hope having Mr. Meyer on board means it doesn’t suck. I hope the new movie doesn’t suck. But I’m taking nothing on faith. Like I said, I’ll wait for reviews. At this point, they need to try pretty hard to win me back and so far I’ve seen nothing to suggest that’s their aim at all.
Corrected – I’m not sure if Damon Lindelof is tied to the new show or not.
The only trailer we’ve seen for the new TV show is one geared towards advertising execs and marketers. I wouldn’t rely on it to give an accurate impression of what the show will be like.
Actually, I think it is perfectly okay for them to get offended (and to take legal action) when somebody is making profit off the IP they purchased. CBS and Paramount bought “Star Trek” with their good money, and they are both legally and morally entitled to this kind of protection.
That’s business, and that’s perfectly fine.
What isn’t fine, is that Paramount and CBS are destroying the very soul of the IP they bought. Surely the intent of the original creator (in this case – Gene Roddenberry) should also receive some protection and consideration? Imagine a situation where a businessman buys an expensive unique painting of a very loved artist, and than decides to smash it with a hammer. Should this guy really have the right to take legal action against that artist’s fans, when they are desperately trying to save his work from oblivion?
You know, at any other time, I would have found your remark hilarious.
But given the current situation, I don’t find your joke funny at all. It’s true that Roddenberry himself was a very flawed man (and definitely not a good role model), but his vision for “Star Trek” is one of the biggest positive influences on humanity in the 20th century.
That vision deserves to be protected, and right now it is in very grave danger. So I’m sorry, but right now I’m not very appreciative of digs at the Great Bird, no matter how much truth there might be in them.
I’m not sure it will suck. I simply don’t care anymore, after all that has happened in the last 7 years.
Of-course, if the new show is really groundbreaking and top-notch, this might change. But as JanKafka said: They will have to try very hard to win me back (and putting their TV show on pay-per-view is already one step in the wrong direction).
I thank Roddenberry for creating Star Trek, but I certainly don’t like to put him on a pedestal; particularly when he stole credit from others. That is pretty far from the ideals he claimed to champion.
And the die-hard fans of a genre AGAIN publicly express their heartfelt belief that they are the SOLE reason that their particular fandom means anything to anyone.
Oh, I agree (and I’ve even said as much in my previous post). I just don’t see how this is relevant to the current discussion. Nobody here was putting him on a pedestal. People have been putting his vision for Star Trek on a pedestal, and for a very good reason – I think.
True. But I would like to point out that the bar set by official Star Trek in the past 11 years was ridiculously low.
What have we got in the time period between 2005 and 2016? Three brainless action flicks, which were produced by a guy who openly admitted that he isn’t interested in Star Trek at all, and were marketed as “not your father’s Trek“.
That’s all we’ve got in the past 11 years. So saying that the die-hard fans contributed more to the franchise during that time period is hardly a sign of illusions of grandeur. It is simply a sign that Paramount are not doing their jobs.
So Paramount want to regain control? Great. The solution for this is very simple: Do your f***-ing job, Paramount. Stop whining about “losing control”, and start caring about the 50-year-old franchise you are supposed to care for. And for the love of Pete, stop throwing legal tantrums against those who lovingly volunteer to do the job that you were supposed to do.
If you think these rules are Anti-Fan….
If you think their right….
Join us…Let them know.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/smallaccess/members/
Exactly! And other older cultural treasures getting the kind of respect Star Trek isn’t getting are doing fine. Doctor Who, in the hands of people who grew up loving it. (Yes, there have been missteps.) The latest Captain America movies, which are thinking adventures as well as action ones. Even Star Wars, which may have benefitted from the JJ treatment that so hurt Star Trek.
Whereas over in DC movies…well, I can’t say much as I refuse to see them. (Star Trek was my favorite series growing up, but I was also a DC girl too.)
It makes sense, because JJ Abrams has been a Star Wars fan all his life. He may not be George Lucas, but he does care a great deal about that franchise.
But Star Trek? The guy openly admitted that he doesn’t care for Trek. Look at what he said in an interview a while ago:
Can you run this by me again, Paramount? Why – in the name of Great Bird of the Galaxy – did you hand over the direction of Star Trek films to this guy who openly admits he hates your product?
It simply boggles the mind.
He did not say he hates Star Trek. He’s not even implying that. He says he just never cared about it. Get over it, not everybody who’s hired to work on your favorite property needs to be a fan.
In fact, I am fairly certain that whatever your favorite Star Trek episodes of all times are, 99% of the people who worked on them are not Star Trek fans.
@46/JanKafka: “I’m interested that they’re working with Nicholas Meyer, who apparently was able to distill the best parts of TOS in an amazingly short period of time.”
I guess it depends on what you consider the best parts. In my view TWOK introduced some great characters, and Genesis was really really beautiful, but it was also responsible for a certain militarisation of Starfleet. I liked the idea of a very unmilitary military that is mostly occupied with science, exploration, ferrying of diplomats and medicine and helping in the event of natural disasters. (OK, the militarisation of Starfleet was much worse in Into Darkness, but at least there it was presented as a problem.) In addition, it ruined the magnanimous ending of Space Seed.
@51/OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: “[…] and were marketed as “not your father’s Trek“.”
Yeah, that was annoying. They never mentioned the mothers.
@56 – As I recall, Genesis wasn’t being developed as a weapon. In fact they were having trouble testing it because they were finding lifeforms everywhere they looked and weren’t willing to consider any of them “too primitive” to worry about. The Klingons (and Kahn) saw the military potential. Do you mean it led to militarization? I agree, the idea that no-one checked up on the colony was a little odd. But then, these were very dangerous people.
The “best parts” Nick Meyer discovered were explorations of these characters and their relationships to each other and realizing that the stories explored themes in a science fiction setting. Considering he came in cold, I always felt he did a good job with those.
@57/JanKafka: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that Genesis was developed as a weapon. The “it” referred to TWOK, not to Genesis. I meant small things – military-looking uniforms, a more military demeanor (“Admiral on the bridge!”) and the fact that David Marcus was afraid that the military might take Genesis away from them to turn it into a weapon (“that overgrown boy scout […] that’s exactly the kind of man”). Why would he think that if he had grown up with the Starfleet from TOS? I’m probably overcritical because, as I wrote above, I love the way things were portrayed in TOS.
Yes, somebody should have checked up on Khan’s people, but I imagine that the information about them got lost – somewhere in Starfleet bureaucracy, or due to a computer glitch.
I mostly agree about the characters and their relationships. I like it that Spock and McCoy give birthday presents to Kirk, and also the Spock-Saavik relationship.
I don’t really think Starfleet in TWOK is more militarized; they’re already very clearly the military in TOS.
Of course they are the military, but they are very different from contemporary militaries. In TNG that’s even more so.
@58 JanaJansen, Ah, I’m sorry I misread your comment. It seems to me that the emphasis on the Enterprise being more like a “modern” naval vessel started in The Motion Picture (and perhaps was there partly to emphasize Kirk’s promotion to admiral?)
It is there, as you say, and you’re quite right about David’s concerns, and those are absolutely from Nick Meyer’s script.
I think none of the movies have ever quite grasped the charms of TOS as they might have.
(I also meant to say I had the same reaction to Not Your Father’s Star Trek. My kids were quick to say, you mean not our mother’s.)
If you people want to watch one of the most recently finished, and published on YouTube, Spectacular productions of a Trek fan film, then you absolutely need to check this out. Basically put together by only one man over three years. Axanar, has the promise of being equal to or even better than this.http://www.startrekhorizon.com/home2/
@61/JanKafka: Yes, maybe it started with TMP.
That is so true.
Great kids!
Yeah, but if the actual show runner doesn’t like the show or what it stands for (“It was too philosophical and it bored me”) then I think we’ve got a bit of a problem. I admit that using the word “hate” was too strong, though this doesn’t change the validity of my point in any way. And the quality of the actual movies we got in the end only serve to prove my point that yes, it does matter whether your show runner cares for your franchise or not.
BTW, I’m curious to hear what Star Wars fans have to say about The Force Awakens. I’m not very well versed in Star Wars lore, but my intuition tells me that Abrams made an infinitely better job on that film than he did on Star Trek, and I wonder whether this hunch of mine is correct.
I agree that The Force Awakens might be better than JJ’s Trek, but that’s probably because Star Wars was always expected to be an adventure film, while many Star Trek fans forget that Star Trek works better on TV than it does on movies. I liked the first JJ Trek movie, and I liked it far more than Nemesis or Insurrection, which I only think most fans who like them do so because they starred the TNG characters and actors.
Also regarding JJ’s quote, not only is he NOT saying that he hates Star Trek (If you don’t like something I like, you must HATE it, and think I’m stupid! I’m offended!), he’s saying that’s how he felt about it as a kid. So what? Where’s the rest of the quote? Is it lifted out of context? Did he grow to appreciate it more as he got older? Is that answered directly, or implied by the very nature of the quote?
As a fan of both Trek and Wars, TFA does not suck like the prequels! I’d say it sits somewhere below the Droids cartoon and above Ewoks: Battle for Endor. I really liked it at the time of release, but on rewatch it kinda slips because it is pretty but emotionally empty with some really odd editing choices. The reveal about Darth Pretty Boy is just too early in the film, for example. In Trek terms it is Generations, was liked at the time but did not hold up so great later (but at least it didn’t suck as hard as The Final Frontier). TFA, it could be better, but it doesn’t suck as hard as the prequels though.
It’s from a video interview which can be found of the net. If you’re really interested, just watch the video and then decide for yourself.
Thanks. That’s about what I expected.
Well, I’m casting my vote.
Finding the totalitarian war against Fan Films which slams shut all the best of the most devoted Star Trek fans, my vote is Nay.
Paramount/CBS, you’re boycotted. I choose to never spend a single penny on anything Star Trek until this Romulan-like regime (oops…sue me…) goes away. I’ll spend my money on Star Wars. They love their fans. They hold fan film festivals, and contests, and honors them by putting their elements in their movies. You tyrants would have just sued all of them.
Goodbye Star Trek. It’s been a great ride. But your legacy is in the hands of those who simply aren’t worthy of you.
REMEMBER AXANAR! I certainly will.
@67/random22: “In Trek terms it is Generations, was liked at the time but did not hold up so great later”
Is that the general perception concerning Generations? Because I had the opposite reaction – I like it much better now than I did when it was new.
Concerning The Force Awakens, I find that it has similar flaws as Star Trek 2009 – a hectic plot, an implausible and rather pathetic villain, references to earlier films that feel like fan service, blowing up one or more major planets without any great in-universe consequences. Also similar assets: nice visuals. The difference is that the main characters are actually likeable and competent (not including McCoy, whom I liked a lot).
@69/Roelandt: I’m not a Star Wars fan, so I have to ask: Are there any Star Wars fan films comparable to the Star Trek films targeted by these guidelines, i.e. comparable in length, money raised etc.? Because according to Wikipedia, there used to be a number of guidelines for entries in the contests you mention, including a time limit. So, if Paramount maintained their guidelines and started a fan film contest at the same time, would you be fine with that?
I think my biggest gripe about TFA is that it does not give enough explanation about its superweapon. I have no objection in principle to a big honking space gun that blows up planets or solar system, just the execution. You knew where you were with the Death Star. It turned up in orbit, charged up its gun, and kerpowed its target to tiny bits. Then it gave an old man menstrual cramps (gonna have to file that under undocumented features there).
The new Death Star? Okay charges up then…? Shoots across space, or is it hyperspace? Kills planets is it; or suns, or is it entire starsystems or what? Does it move to a new location every time to charge its batteries up or does it have a regenerating star? More information needed there JJ. I feel the unnecessary visual demand to have some sort of special effect in the sky (like the Delta Vega can see Vulcan thing from NuTrek 1) actually makes it more confused and less satisfying. It is frustrating, because an extra two or three minutes at the scripting stage could have saved so many problems even if it did mean losing an effects shot or adding a small amount of exposition. ANH had a great exposition scene with all the admirals around the table bitching at each other with not an effects shot to be seen.
@71:
That was also my biggest complaint. Really, it was my only complaint. Because it was just massively stupid. Especially the part where they watched a planet blow up from the surface of another planet in another solar system.
I did a bunch of research on how that managed to make it through production and onto screens with no one calling bull***t on it.
Ends up, it was far less stupid when scripted and filmed, and made MORE stupid in post and editing, and pickups, because JJ didn’t think what was happening was clear, or visual enough. So. Yeah, that’s completely on him.
As scripted, it didn’t use the sun at all. It gathered dark energy, and shot the beam through hyperspace. However, none of that is visible, sho JJ changed it to gathering energy from the sun during the August 2014 reshoots. Which is, like, 3 months before the final edit was finished. They’d already screened the film for people and most SFX shots were already done not related to Starkiller base.
As it stands, the visual is so preposterous that I literally leave the room when we’re watching it on BR, because my family is sick and tired of hearing me bi*ch about it.
ADDENDUM: And, yes, the base is stationary and does not travel from system to system. It drains the sun’s energy, but not completely, enough is left over for nuclear fusion to continue to happen, so it comes back. But would a star recover that quickly? I don’t know. I’m imagining it would take millennia to regenerate sufficiently, and that the surface of the planet would become completely inhospitable to life in the process of the star re-starting the nuclear fusion process. Just imagine the radiation, and the magnetic forces that would blow through a planet’s atmosphere during that process.
It was just all around dumb. Some workarounds that would have made it better, maybe even GOOD:
• Have the planet be a force sentient life-form, like Anakin and Obi-wan discovered in the book Rogue Planet. Make that a necessary component of the weapon, and you have the built in “its the Force, stupid” hand-wavium to fall back on.
• Heck, if you can fire the weapon through Hyperspace, why can’t you collect the energy through Hyperspace? Imagine being able to drain the sun from any system you want to fire your weapon at any other system? TWO systems destroyed for the price of one! And you don’t even have to destroy your own solar system in the process. Or, give it some limits, some consequences, like you can only draw the energy from a particular system based on galactic rotation. And the cost of firing the weapon right now will destroy a First Order world in the process?
Being a writer myself, I totally get why Paramount would be concerned with the Axenar project. However, Star Trek Continues and ST New Voyages (at least according to their websites) did their productions for the fans, and ALWAYS credited CBS/Paramount. Although the IP belongs to CBS, if their executives knew ANYTHING about ST fans is, that we will watch ALL productions. CBS is missing a great opportunity here, The new show has a whole different timeline, so if anything New Voyages and ST Continues just offer a glimpse to the ST past. Let them produce but at least let them make decent episodes by allowing them to use the characters in a non profit way.
Maybe I’m being completely and totally naive here (ok, I am..), and I haven’t read the rest of this bohemoth thread, so probably this is redundant. But why the heck can’t CBS/Paramount just get one of their lawyers/”creative-people” in a room with the head people on the Axanar team and simply say, “ok, we want 10% net revenue?” (Or whatever, as long as it’s not “confiscatory” and pisses off creators so much that they just don’t do fan stuff.)
My understanding (and I haven’t really been following this at all) was that the thing (or one of them) that really pissed off Paramount was that the Axanar people were starting to “make money” off it by selling coffee cups, shirts, etc. But *the very fact that they can is exactly the reason why Paramount should be encouraging it*. If Paramount want’s 10%, then fine.
If Paramount is afraid of “polluting the fiction timeline” – then make a demand that the Axanar group have the crew go through yet-another-wormhole (they seem to be scattered hither and yon EVERYWHERE – Voyager proved that), and create a THIRD timeline. So then we’d have the Prime timeline, the Alternate timeline (the “Abramsverse”), and then a “Prime-beta” timeline (Axanar). I’m don’t know where the “Shatnerverse” would fit into such a mess. (How *does* Paramount “officially” deal with that? Or does Shatner get a “pass” because without him, there would *be* no Star Trek?)
And then make up some Treknobabble explanation for why the Department of Temporal Investigations conveniently forgot abut it – though they apparently let Janeway(s) get away with it. Or maybe it happened a long way away from the Alpha quadrant, and DTI’s temporal scanners “didn’t notice it”. Light waves dim as they pass over 100 thousand-odd light years, presumably “temporal tachyon shadows” do too. Except it would be over light-years-*squared* – presumably they would dim even “faster” (Uugh.. Whatever..) We never saw them show up to mess with Annorax in “Year Of Hell” after all. “Year of Hell” (season 4) was after “Future’s End” (season 3), so the concept of DTI had been invented out-of-universe.
Back to the Axanar and Paramount feud, I thought the people at Paramount were *business people* who were *interesting in making money! And that consequently, they’d recognize when something was not in their best interest (like Trump, but that’s a whole other kettle of worms). For crying out low, it was the J.J. Abrams himself who told Paramount to rein it’s legal wolves in.
@74 Lots and lots of reasons why that is bad idea, but one of the really big ones is that it legitimizes the idea that a fanfilm group can just come along and hijack their intellectual property to try and profit from it and Paramount will do pretty much nothing. Plus in this case there is no money to take a cut off, the Axanar guys already spent all of it on building their own studio for their own commercial projects. It was a huge scam, possibly even one that depended on pushing to the point that Paramount did sue so they wouldn’t have to deliver on anything.
Instead of these overly suffocating overkill restrictions… just charge Star trek: Anexter or whatever they’re called a fee on the over whatever the hell it is and do the same to whomever… so, that they get a little piece of that pie that goes over expectations! ALLOW THE ONES WHO STAY WITHIN BUDGET TO “CONTINUE” WITH THEIR “NEW VOYAGES” so, that “”WE”” the fans are not deprived of some awesome Star Trek homage \\//_
As it has been said several times, it’s not just about “taking a cut”, but about not letting just anyone do whatever they want with Paramount’s intelectual property.
The most recent casualty for breaching the guidelines is the fanmade TNG Enterprise virtual reality simulator.
Thanks again, Axanar dudes.
https://kotaku.com/cbs-shuts-down-ambitious-fan-effort-to-make-a-virtual-s-1829396289
All of the fan work is reaaly good and I’ve been watching it. Axanar was was at a whole other level though. Fantastic actors, nearly perfect cgi, and a story that has needed to be told for 50 years. Its far better than what cbs and paramount are vomiting up right now. I was giddy wanting to see it. How about this. How about team up with fans and their content producers and make excellent stuff we want to see. Maybe cbs or paramount buy into Axanar and go ahead and make it. Sorry to say it but the deviations to the universe after ds9 and voyager went off the air leave me completely uninterested in what is being produced officially. The kelvin universe and new wierdo klingons for example. Dont need it. Dont want it.
CBS and Paramount will never “go ahead and make Axanar”.
@79 Odd that you say that the DS9 et al stuff was what turned you off, and made you want to see Axanar when Axanar is 100% the stuff from DS9 and the subsequent. If you disliked the direction of the post DS9 and ENT direction of Star Trek then you should avoid the Axanar stuff because it is the same damn thing. And that is why I hated the idea of Axanar along with the Into Darkness, and the series direction post ENT and Star Trek Beyond too. Both Axanar and the franchise beyond that point are near on identical on drawing from the worst aspects of its own history to create unwatchable messes.