Star Trek: Axanar

[TerryMcIntosh]

Perhaps in a year, when Axanar puts out its next scene (Yes, I know they are still building sets, I'm making a joke, everyone chill) we'll have moved on to a different subject.

Until then, let's all take a step back and recognize that while we may vociferously hold to our opinions, that everyone else has their own, equally vociferously held opinions that are just as valid to hold, even though we might not all see eye to eye on some things.

Moving on:

I have a question for Terry McIntosh, Axanar's producer.

I was made to understand via the Axanar website from this November 14, 2014 post that the production was removing the name "Star Trek" from its various entities.

From Alec Peters' own words in that entry:

In deference to CBS, we have removed the Star Trek branding from our website. and our Facebook page. We are also changing all emails to axanarproductions.com from startrekaxanar.com and we will be doing this sort of change throughout our productions digital assets. We think at this point Axanar has its own brand and we don’t need to use the Star Trek name. We are cognizant that we are using CBS’ intellectual property and we wish to minimize the use of that IP in our film and in our overall production.

I am assuming this decision has summarily been reneged, as I see "STAR TREK" all over the current IndieGoGo fundraiser page and associated video?

Again, from that entry:

Our move to eliminate “Star Trek” branding is simply going an extra mile to respect the entity which allows Axanar to be made and honor the Star Trek franchise we all hold so dear.

...or did you guys just mean "We're not going to use the "STAR TREK" name.... unless we need to use it to raise money." ? Or does Axanar no longer respect CBS? Or is it just that the earlier gesture in November really meant nothing?

Obviously, I'm having a little fun here with some of the more absurd suggestions, but I am curious about the reasoning behind the change, because to the uninitiated (like me) it comes across as awfully convenient that you're using the STAR TREK name again as you launch another fundraiser.

We rebranded just as "Axanar" to be proactive and remove any possibility of CBS being irritated with any of the things that we're doing. In hindsight it hurt us in organic search -- people finding us on the internet -- so we've relaxed that decision significantly. Sadly, Facebook won't allow us to rebrand the 'like' page, so it's stuck at "Axanar" and not "Star Trek: Axanar" unless we risk some slight of hand there and do a merging with another page that's branded as we would like it to be now. We may do it or may not... just not on my radar at the moment with other things happening.

Star Trek Axanar is the name of one of our works, while Axanar Productions is the proper name of the production company behind it. Axanar Productions will not only be releasing other projects based on Star Trek, but also projects that have nothing at all to do with Star Trek (ie: for profit), so we're being careful to keep things separate (compartmentalize, if you will) as best as possible -- CBS IP in one side and 'other' on the other side.

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

You know what'd be awesome? Axanar ships that match the Eaglemoss releases. I would so "donate" to get a few of them. The models they've already done look awesome, but my gluing and painting days are long over.

While that would be super cool, we don't have the money for something like that... not by a long shot. Remember, our bank balance is almost exclusively filled with money from donations, and once it's gone it's gone, so we're not going to be spending any of it on merch and swag that isn't inexpensive to have produced and guaranteed to fly off of the shelves in small batches so that we're not sitting on inventory and having money that could be better spent being tied up with a bit question mark over it.

The only reason that we offer swag in our donor store is for the profit -- money above what it costs to have the swag made -- which then goes back in to the production's bank account for expenses. If we tied up say $50,000 for some bit of swag and it was a flop then we'd not only feel pretty stupid, but we'd also not have that money to make the film and that's just not something that we're comfortable doing.

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

Sorry if I've missed anyone's questions to me or the production in the last 5 or so pages of comments. As soon as I noticed all of the folks banging their dicks on the desk and fighting over silly stuff, I started to tune out and went from reading to quickly skimming. =P

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

Getting back on topic - is there anyone under 55 in this? This is maybe one of the oldest Trek productions we have seen in a while (that's an observation not a critique).

Yes, although the headliners are veteran actors, for sure, because they have the chops to act the way we need them to. Don't worry, because there will be a wide range of diverse characters. It won't be an 'old folks home in space', not that 50+ is old. But, we won't be parading out a group of fetuses in the roles either. =P

There also won't be nepotism, because that's common in fan films and indie Trek -- I could cite one recent example where it may have been a bad decision. Our actors in Axanar will be professional actors, because the story demands no less no matter the character's age. Heck, Alec is now a member of SAG, too, now, and he's properly busting his backside with very talented coaches so that he's ready to properly deliver a wonderful performance, too.

 

[JoeZhang]

It does seem unlikely that a megalomaniacal villain with the ability to choose any appearance he wanted would go with anything other than a perfected version of their appearance, or just younger.

Twenty years after Axanar, Garth would have to be, at least, in his 50's or 60's.

And yet he doesn't quite look that in TOS. Certaintly not a 55 year old man who lived through war, mental illness and institutionalisation.

He's been giving his appearance work through his ability.

To be fair, I was amazed to see the actor who played him on the proper show was in his early 30s - that guy had a hard life!

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

Without going too far off track given what we are discussing is all made-up - go and look at the history books - the 'experienced officers of the line' at the front were often not in their 50s and 60s, they were in their 20s and early 30s - partly because war time rapidly grows the services and creates slots and bullets take care of the rest. This idea that the young were simply "boots on the ground" is a false one I think created by how TV shows are cast (and here by the fact that this production features a lot of what we in the UK might em..call 'resting' actors).

Just as a random example - Colonel John Landers who commanded the 78th fighter group was 24 and got there with four years service.

I am fully aware of this fact, but one must also look at the life expectancy rate, and when there initial military experience would have begun. Historically, in some cultures, I would not be married until the age I am now (30) and would be working in my field or the family business (I'm not).

So, while historically, if Axanar were to be painted as a WW2 piece, then yes, the officers of the line would be much younger than the current cast. However, given that life expectancy rate is longer in the Federation (its even longer now than before) I don't find it unreasonable that these seasoned officers would be their ages.

Though, given history, I probably should be less harsh on Jedi Masters being only 18 in other fan films

But if it has been a long, bloody war with Axanar being the end, then it would make sense that we'd see a lot of younger officers holding senior positions.

Not necessarily, but surely that would be in play. The other way to look at it is that the sh*tty captains were picked off by the Klingons early on (the commander of the Grissom from ST3, for example, wouldn't have lasted long in Axanar either =P ). so the veterans that remain to command the ships that are still in one piece are some badasses. =)

 

[Campe]

Nevermind the fact that Alec Peters is 19 years older than Steve Ihnat was when he played Garth. And there's supposed to be a 20 year age period between Axanar and "Whom Gods Destroy?" Ihnat looked older than his 35 years but not that old. Maybe, MAYBE 50. Peters does not look 30.

Sorry but that strains credulity for me. I get that it's Peters' baby and all of that, but seriously... Cast for believability. There are good actors in and out of Hollywood who would be more age appropriate and just as talented who could pull off the role. Just my $0.02.

Well I can understand that $0.02 but here is 2 more for good measure.

First of all, fan films cannot always cast for believability. They are labors of love, and have to work around real life work, schedules and ability. As much as I have enjoyed many fan films over the years, my joke about 18 year old Jedi Masters is not inaccurate in the Star Wars fan film world.

To respond to that: They're producing in Hollywood. The number of unemployed actors is through the roof. Go to a street corner and you're likely to find at least one unemployed 25-year old male actor who can do a passable Garth of Izar.

I can accept the shapeshifting thing though, I guess. I don't like it but I'll accept it.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Twenty years after Axanar, Garth would have to be, at least, in his 50's or 60's.

And yet he doesn't quite look that in TOS. Certaintly not a 55 year old man who lived through war, mental illness and institutionalisation.

He's been giving his appearance work through his ability.

To be fair, I was amazed to see the actor who played him on the proper show was in his early 30s - that guy had a hard life!

Not necessarily; although that certainly is one factor. People age at different rates. Some people look older at a certain age while a contemporary might look younger.

 

[Harvey]

Star Trek Axanar is the name of one of our works, while Axanar Productions is the proper name of the production company behind it. Axanar Productions will not only be releasing other projects based on Star Trek, but also projects that have nothing at all to do with Star Trek (ie: for profit), so we're being careful to keep things separate (compartmentalize, if you will) as best as possible -- CBS IP in one side and 'other' on the other side.

Since you're now venturing out into for profit production, I'm curious how you're allocating overhead expenses. Are all the initial enhancements to the Ares studio facility (i.e. sound proofing the stage doors) being charged to Axanar or will they be amortized in the budgets for further productions?

 

[Karzak]

^^ That's a fascinating question.

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

Star Trek Axanar is the name of one of our works, while Axanar Productions is the proper name of the production company behind it. Axanar Productions will not only be releasing other projects based on Star Trek, but also projects that have nothing at all to do with Star Trek (ie: for profit), so we're being careful to keep things separate (compartmentalize, if you will) as best as possible -- CBS IP in one side and 'other' on the other side.

Since you're now venturing out into for profit production, I'm curious how you're allocating overhead expenses. Are all the initial enhancements to the Ares studio facility (i.e. sound proofing the stage doors) being charged to Axanar or will they be amortized in the budgets for further productions?

When the time comes and we're actually doing another production then there will be two completely separate ledgers. Well, more to the point there will be a bunch of ledgers, one for each film and then a master ledger for anything with CBS IP, and then separate ledgers for anything that we can make a profit on that has nothing to do with CBS IP.

The goal with doing other productions, or even leasing out the studio to others, is not only artistic (we want to make lots of movies), but also practical. The studio lease won't pay for itself and we need to raise money to pay it, insurance, electricity bills, and the basics and fundamentals that are required to exist in an ongoing basis.

The lease renewal is not that far off, and, speaking only for me, I don't have $120k, or whatever it is, in the sofa cushions at the moment. We also really don't want to ask for donations or do a fundraiser for it, if it can be helped. Ideally it would be awesome it if were self-sustaining for the future, or even partially self-sustaining. That can only happen if we rent it out or do productions that can earn profit where we can then write that check to the landlord with those funds and not have to let it fall on the Axanar-side. If we can get the studio to be self-sustaining then future works, whatever they might be, will cost less, of course, too.

EDIT: re: amortization question on funds invested by Axanar proper for Axanar proper in the studio space; great question and I have no idea. Alec is in charge of the books, of course, and is the only one that writes checks, but speaking from experience he is a man of integrity in such things and will always do the right thing. If that wasn't the case then I wouldn't be involved with the production, so everyone can count on the right decision being made there. Besides, we open the books up to the public, so everyone can see where money goes, where money comes in, and line-by-line expenses, too. =)

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek Axanar is the name of one of our works, while Axanar Productions is the proper name of the production company behind it. Axanar Productions will not only be releasing other projects based on Star Trek, but also projects that have nothing at all to do with Star Trek (ie: for profit), so we're being careful to keep things separate (compartmentalize, if you will) as best as possible -- CBS IP in one side and 'other' on the other side.

Since you're now venturing out into for profit production, I'm curious how you're allocating overhead expenses. Are all the initial enhancements to the Ares studio facility (i.e. sound proofing the stage doors) being charged to Axanar or will they be amortized in the budgets for further productions?

Great question! I find the behind the scenes financing on film projects interesting.

 

[BigJake]

Ithekro's comment reads as very dismissive in the manner — all too common today — of attacking critical thinking by impugning those who hold a contrary position by suggesting they are out of touch

See, speaking of unwarranted accusations, I don't see this in it at all. In fact it used to be quite common for film critics to remark that their tastes were a bit jaded by familiarity with the material -- this had nothing at all to do with "attacking critical thinking" and so far as I can tell neither did Ithekro's post*. You seem to me to be doing a verbose version of crying ad hominem.

(* Reversing it to produce a somehow clear insult doesn't work either; it is possible for people to get habituated to defending certain things out of familiarity, in fact I take the jist of some of your remarks here to mean precisely that and that wouldn't be an inherently insulting thing to say at all, if it were accurate. I think you're wrong about some things but I don't see any reason to assail you for engaging in ad hominem attacks, and I don't understand why you're doing that to Ithekro, who AFAICT does not deserve it.)

(EDIT: Well, look, I don't want to clog the thread with yet another pointless argument. At the end of the day I think it's an honest misunderstanding. Just registering that there are readings of the post available that aren't as hostile as the interpretation that first occurred to you. I'll leave it at that.)

 

[Kemaiku]

Okay this went back a page, hate it when it won't load the most recent one.

 

[Maurice]

I think you're wrong about some things but I don't see any reason to assail you for engaging in ad hominem attacks, and I don't understand why you're doing that to Ithekro, who AFAICT does not deserve it.)

Precisely when did I "ad hominem attack Ithekro"? I attacked the argument, not him. Post not poster, which few people here seem capable of doing. He said "maybe you have too high standards" and I rejected that notion and explained why. Simple enough.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Decisions that were to be made are being made by older experienced people, hence why kirk in the recent trek films being a captain of the flagship vessel at such a young age prancing around the galaxy is beyond ridiculous.
Picard and his older age and "experience" was just right for TNG, Sisko was hardly a spring chicken and he was only a commander.

Um, seeing as Kirk was 32 in season 1 of TOS and the writer's bible had him having commanded the ship for 4 years at that point Kirk Prime would have been 28 when he became captain of the Enterprise.

 

[urbandefault]

Good grief, could skins get any thinner? (insert rolleyes emoticon here).

Focus, people. Jeepers.

 

[Tosk]

You know what'd be awesome? Axanar ships that match the Eaglemoss releases. I would so "donate" to get a few of them. The models they've already done look awesome, but my gluing and painting days are long over.

While that would be super cool, we don't have the money for something like that... not by a long shot.

I never thought it was something that would happen, just kind of wishing out loud.

 

[BigJake]

Precisely when did I "ad hominem attack Ithekro"?

You didn't. You were effectively accusing him of ad hominem attacking you, for reasons which I found insufficient, as explained. Sorry if that was unclear.

Good grief, could skins get any thinner?

For once, I completely agree with you.

 

[Phantom]

Read Cushman's books, esp the first one where he details GRs efforts to make Trek as literate as possible within the constraints of his studio mandate. He routinely sought out writers specifically with a SF background for just that reason.

I'll take actual documentation generated by Roddenberry himself over third, forth and fifth hand recollections and poor research done by Marc Cushman.

And, I'll save you the typing... it has been pretty well proven what Cushman did was a hack job where he inserted his own opinions instead of doing actual research in many places. There's a whole thread in the TOS forum about it.

He cites the documents and interviews in the books, including where GR works with (and sometimes screws over) known sci-fi and other professional writers .