I deny being in denial until I know what I'm imagined to be denying.
My first thought was, "not bad for a start up and a 2 grand budget with some good VFX talent"
So that's what makes it so good?"Prelude..." cost a hundred-grand.![]()
No, I'll disagree with you there. I found it interesting and fairly well written / played. I really wanted to see the full film. I still do. But I simply can not support it in the current state. I would honestly love it if CBS could somehow take over the project and do it right. That would, of course, mean that Mr. Peters and probably a few others would be kicked off the project.I thought Prelude was boring [and] poorly written
Probably just not my thing.No, I'll disagree with you there.
Sooo.... if the for profit entity being lined up to "reimburse Axanar Productions for the fan-donated money it invested in the commercial project"
Hold on - did he just say the studio is a commercial project?? I thought that it being a commercial project was being flatly denied.
Mr. Bawden told us about the hired accountant taking over the books.
Which at the time I just took to mean that finally the production was taking measures to address all these accounting concerns being brought up.
Which I'm now thinking is possibly 'not' because of all these concerns but instead because the for profit entity is not going to offer reimbursement on a vague accounting system.
Huh.
That's the predictably evasive question living in denial. It doesn't matter why.
I found it interesting and fairly well written / played.
Hey, guys, both of you contribute well, here. The subject of these near-800 pages has "turned" on us fans and the love we have for Star Trek. Let's not turn on each other.
I found it interesting because it used a storytelling device that Trek hadn't used before with the faux documentary.
I found it interesting because it used a storytelling device that Trek hadn't used before with the faux documentary. But I seriously doubt the main Axanar film would've been any better than the majority of fan films. It probably would've been worse when you consider the amount of money it was going to cost to make.
Wait. No. Have I given the impression I meant the reimbursed donor funds might somehow become a partial refund to the donors? If I did, I so do apologize. So while I didn't state it I do think the reimbursement will go, or be planned to go, straight & finally, into getting that film made. Or a revised version of it anyway if everything doesn't go completely sideways for the production.It could be. I wonder what the accounting of donor money sunk into the assets would amount to. I guess it would come down to whether the money back actually represents the donor money sunk into it and the sweat equity sunk into it by volunteers and underpaid professionals. If Alec were a part owner of this other company, it could mean he would be cashing in on the sweat equity. I agree it would be best to offer donors the money back.
I suspect some of them saw a paycheck.I found it interesting that reputable actors were committing to it. It made me think that they had seen something in the overall story that was worthy of the respect they have garnered among their fans, and in their overall careers.
Or at least did have one such talk, however fruitless.But the studios are really hanging firm so far aren't they - even though someone - Oh, it was Carlos in the Trekzone Pt 2 video. He mentioned he has credible information that the studios & production 'are' talking to each other.
Actually closer to $123,000."Prelude..." cost a hundred-grand.![]()
Enjoyed the second half of the interview - great work there @carlosp . Given Alec's temperament and everything that's been said/done, I'm not sure there's much, if anything Mr. Bowden can do to mitigate things, though I do respect him for attempting to do so.
I don't, especially if he's doing this for free. He's helping out someone who shouldn't be helped.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.