• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
(grrr XenForo grumble snarf)

What I was going to say before Xenforo somehow posted that without my intending to...

...was that I can't figure out how it's been two weeks and he apparently still lacks legal representation... I mean, aren't we getting down to the wire here?
 
Ion said:
(grrr XenForo grumble snarf)

What I was going to say before Xenforo somehow posted that without my intending to...

...was that I can't figure out how it's been two weeks and he apparently still lacks legal representation... I mean, aren't we getting down to the wire here?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if Peters just disappears here soon.
 
Dennis said:
Probably not.

Does that cost include the equipment and installation?
Click to expand...
I am sure you can get a VOIP setup for the FRACTIOn of the cost... at 7K for telephone systems, is he installing a full on PBX there?

This is an example of what I call wasteful spending. How does he need a 7K phone system...
 
SuperSpaceMan said:
This is an example of what I call wasteful spending. How does he need a 7K phone system...
Click to expand...

He was planning on being a big time Hollywood producer! Or he spent a large portion of it on stuff he shouldn't have and just put it under 'Phone'.
 
BillJ said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Peters just disappears here soon.
Click to expand...

Part of me agrees strongly with you, but... My guess is that Axanar will disappear; Peters will go quiet for a while, which most people will think is shame. In reality, he's plotting. Then, in a year, we'll have Propworx III: The Search For Axanar.

He just doesn't seem like someone who will stop, given the number of failures in his history.

:shrug:
 
BillJ said:
He was planning on being a big time Hollywood producer! Or he spent a large portion of it on stuff he shouldn't have and just put it under 'Phone'.
Click to expand...
Right, but this is an example of a cart before the horse.... Okay You want a phone system? Fine, get a frigging magic jack, and a couple wireless handsets until you have a real business justification to sink 7K into a dang phone system...

This is the kind of stuff the donors refuse to see.. because he was "Transparent" about it... bleh
 
SuperSpaceMan said:
Right, but this is an example of a cart before the horse.... Okay You want a phone system? Fine, get a frigging magic jack, and a couple wireless handsets until you have a real business justification to sink 7K into a dang phone system...

This is the kind of stuff the donors refuse to see.. because he was "Transparent" about it... bleh
Click to expand...

I imagine he probably does have a Magic Jack. :lol:
 
Mark 2000 said:
To me it seems obvious there was never going to be a film. There's no sets. There's no one signed to actually act in the thing. And they were supposed to start filming next month?
Click to expand...
I'm no defender of Axanar and its practices, but the lack of "signed" actors is in of itself not unusual. Actors aren't "signed" until their contracts are, and such contracts generally specify the shooting dates. If there are no firm shooting dates, a lot of actors won't sign because it could end up that the shooting dates get pushed and they're left without work during the interim. The way around that, of course, is a "pay or play" deal, where the actor still gets paid if the film gets postponed or cancelled or even if their part gets cut before shooting starts, but that's nothing a fanfilm wants to do because the risk is too high. I'm working on a project right now which has a number of actors who've agreed to be in it IF the shooting lands on the agreed upon dates, but until the financing is all is place and they are paid, none of them are "signed". It's not that uncommon.
 
Although the indiegogo fundraiser has closed, Axanar is still taking donations, directly.

(Sorry, no soliciting allowed - T'Bonz)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King Daniel Beyond said:
I'd say it's obviously implied that Khan Prime had the same "magic blood" - the properties of which are referenced in Enterprise's Augment Arc, where Arik Soong talks about how the banned technology could have cured and saved Henry Archer, and how Augments are immune to illness.
Repairing the damage done by brain-eating parasites is apparently beyond Khan's blood's regenerative abilities.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about the Henry Archer thing. That being said, could Soong have meant the idea of genetic engineering in general saving Archer's dad and not augment blood? I mean did augment blood in the Prime Universe transfer its regenerative healing properties to non-Augments like in the alternative time line? Or even to fellow Augments?

I don't think it's implied that Khan Prime has magic blood, however it is something interesting to ponder. But if Khan Prime did have magic blood wouldn't it have been brought up at some point? I mean didn't McCoy examine him?
 
Last edited:
SuperSpaceMan said:
Maybe, but Cumberbatch came with the recommendation of Spielberg...
Also wasn't Khan, Genetically altered and stuff, I mean would his skin tone, really matter, and/or need to match the ethnicity of his name?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't his ethnicity match his name? In TOS they took pains to at least portray Khan as a person of color even if they didn't get the right match of the actor's race/ethnicity with the character. And there were various augments across the world composed of many races and ethnicity with a non-white Khan being the most dominant. I thought it was pretty cool that TOS thumped its nose at the idea of white superiority by making a literal superman a person of color.

Into Darkness took that away. It robbed sci-fi and cinema of a new interpretation or iteration of one of one of the great characters of color. I find it funny that some fans-not saying you per se- howl whenever a white role is played by a person of color but rarely do some of these same people have a problem when roles are whitewashed.
 
DarKush said:
Why shouldn't his ethnicity match his name? In TOS they took pains to at least portray Khan as a person of color even if they didn't get the right match of the actor's race/ethnicity with the character.
Click to expand...

IOW, if they're not northern European they're all alike...
 
jespah said:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/axanarfansgroup/permalink/533525696823599/?__mref=message_bubble

axa01122016_zpsvpomrfvm.png
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Disney have even more stringent regulations on fan films than Paramount?
 
Maurice said:
Not meaning to mini-mod, but do we HAVE to hash out this ST:ID stuff again and here?

On topic, someone on the I Stand With CBS group posted this nicely written article about Copyrights and Copyright extension:

How Mickey Mouse Evades the Public Domain" (link)
Click to expand...
Interesting article.

I think it's hard to compare The Mouse with Star Trek, because Mickey is Disney, and Disney is Mickey. The article suggested that as long as Disney protects the trademark, the company is really in no danger of losing the little feller to public domain.

Star Trek, on the other hand, isn't necessarily seen as the company behind it. I wholeheartedly support CBS/Paramount's position in this case, but Trek has been owned by Desilu, Paramount (Gulf + Western and Viacom), and CBS, with associations with NBC, UPN, etc.. It would be hard for the layman to nail down exactly who owns Trek.

That said, I still believe that this is an open and shut case. Star Trek may one day enter public domain, but today is not that day.

And by the way, the true-believer who suggested a crowdfunded campaign to buy the IP from CBS?

Wacky doodle. :lol:
 
urbandefault said:
Interesting article.

I think it's hard to compare The Mouse with Star Trek, because Mickey is Disney, and Disney is Mickey. The article suggested that as long as Disney protects the trademark, the company is really in no danger of losing the little feller to public domain.

Star Trek, on the other hand, isn't necessarily seen as the company behind it. I wholeheartedly support CBS/Paramount's position in this case, but Trek has been owned by Desilu, Paramount (Gulf + Western and Viacom), and CBS, with associations with NBC, UPN, etc.. It would be hard for the layman to nail down exactly who owns Trek.

That said, I still believe that this is an open and shut case. Star Trek may one day enter public domain, but today is not that day.
Click to expand...

[WORF]Perhaps today IS a good day to enter the public domain! Prepare for Copyright Infringement![/WORF]

Anyhow, as I noted on the blog the other day, even under the copyright laws in effect when TOS aired, that series would still be under copyright until at least 2022 (or 56 years from the date of first publication). And since many of Axanar's infringements relate to Enterprise, even the most restrictive of U.S. copyright terms--it was originally 14 years back in the 19th century--would still apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top