Yes. Unless there is a reason like safety all trials are open to the public.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Unless there is a reason like safety all trials are open to the public.
It's also likely that oral arguments if CBS/Paramount go for a preliminary injunction will be heard publicly, and so may arguments for each side's planned motions for summary judgement. Those would all come long before the actual trial.
My problem with her trying to call Axanar a "Mockumentary" is that it straight up isn't. In film studies, "mockumentary" is a specific thing. Not just a way of telling a story, but also a specific tone, design, and intent. Prelude is a psuedo-documentary, like Wells' War Of The Worlds broadcast or any one of a number of "found footage" horror films that are popular. Her definition is flat out wrong.
Should the Court allow her to present a transformative, mockumentary defense, I'd think one good Cinema Studies professor testifying as an expert witness would blow the entire defense out of the water.
Heads up that the following is major TLDR
[and quoting more from your Facebook opinion piece]
And that final speculation of yours shows me one path that might happen in which he could 'frame' it to be palatable for them.
Mighty fine speculative opinion piece, Carlos! Damn. Mighty fine.
This has been in my mind too
And although my own uneducated speculations had not envisioned this as a re-direction it does make sense to me. At this time even more than my own about simply 'removing' all ST brandings.
Huh. Well...yeah, I can see that. Very very interesting.
^^^This. Which my own speculations follow: "I'm not convinced it's bluster........I think she's anticipating something she can pull off." -- "Here's where I'm laying odds. That their idea of a possible [setting a new IP precedent] ("however narrow and flimsy") has been weighed and bet on by them before deciding to GO for this one",.... etc.
^^^This. Absolutely, this.
[and quoting more from your Facebook opinion piece]
^^^This!
ohhhhhh. Riiightt.
Yes! I haven't known how to frame it or even what 'it' was, but after I began looking into this thing I've had the strong feeling, 'sense', that the obviousness of the face of this case is far afield from the actual case going on.
Huh. Okayyy......
Okay, that hadn't occurred to me but I can see it. And I'd already been thinking (as of this posting) that "I do think the defendant has the ability spin and more importantly 'sell' any rewrite move made by the production".
And that final speculation of yours shows me one path that might happen in which he could 'frame' it to be palatable for them.
Mighty fine speculative opinion piece, Carlos! Damn. Mighty fine.
Last edited:
Seven of Nine thought she had facts in "Voyager Conspiracy," and she did indeed have facts. Except they were disparate facts she found a way to link together into something we like to call "conspiracy."
What Ranahan said in the MTD was, in a footnote, "As plaintiffs acknowledge, there are multiple versions of the script, and others in progress, which defendants have adjusted since learning of plaintiffs' concerns."
Those adjustments could be almost anything. Most likely filing off the serial numbers, removing the Trek elements. This would be done in an effort to try and win settlement, not to win the case.
This is something you would do, if confronted with this type of lawsuit, to try and find a middle ground, to where you can move forward without calling it "Star Trek" or including any actual Star Trek elements. Your hope would be to get CBS and paramount to say, "Yeah, fine, that'll work for us, we'll move on," with the hope they move on.
Could it be what you're suggesting? Maybe. But it's a bit far-fetched. Not saying it's impossible, because these idiots have done a lot of dumb things. But still, far-fetched.
Please, Carlos, don't let facts get in the way of your belief on this. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating myself to you on this, because seriously, you are one of the most facts-oriented people I know. EXCEPT when you get an idea in your head, and you will not let it shake out.
For the 583rd time, you can define "mockumentary" whatever way you want. Ranahan, however, SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY defines "mockumentary" in both motions to dismiss. It's Footnote 4 on page three of the second MTD:
A "mockumentary" is "a movie or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary.
Might she try to use a parody defense on this later? Sure. She'll have to do something to demonstrate fair use in what is obvious derivative work. But she does not define the term in this case as anything that would be helpful to her in a fair use defense. If she was "setting up" a fair use defense in a technical motion, why would she then define "mockumentary" in this way? Why define it at all? Why try to direct the court's attention away from what would be intended as the foundation of a fair use defense, according to you.
Have you seen the not-yet-file defense paperwork yet? All I've seen are two motions to dismiss, which are technical motions, not defenses. Did I miss that?
He has LOTS of plans to make LOTS of announcements. Except that's the kind of thing you do to distract people from the situation in front of you.
It's like when the Cylons destroyed the 12 Colonies. All the survivors could see is that their world, their way of life has been destroyed. So now what? Cmdr. Adama teased an announcement that they were going to find a new home, a once-thought fictional place called Earth. He teased that he would share the location of it soon ... but it remained a tease for a long time, because in reality, Adama had no idea where it was.
For Peters, someone who says he has lots of announcements, he sure lets things slip without a single bit of fanfare. Like the original discussion of bringing in private investors to take over the studio/warehouse/studio. There was no formal announcement — it was a footnote.
Now this whole Valkyrie Studios thing. Not even Mike Bawden, the spokesman for Axanar, has a clue what this is — going as far as telling me that despite the fact flyers were circulated around a Los Angeles film event, and we've SEEN pictures of the flyer, the whole concept of "Valkyrie Studios" is "speculative."
Except I just shot that down. It's DISPARATE variables. Doesn't mean it won't come true, but it's not likely enough to push it out there as the most likely scenario, as you keep doing.
Oh, more after-the-fact sources? You don't want to debate those the same way Peters runs from debating me directly. You don't want someone to poke legitimate holes into this sourcing.
Hey, I know how great it is to get a scoop, and how much you want to believe that scoop, especially when "sources" come on and agree with you. But it still doesn't make it right.
I did my own bit of speculation a few weeks back on when the "Star Trek: Beyond" final trailer would be released. I had pieced together some disparate variables as well, including recent trends in trailer releases, past trends in Star Trek film trailer releases, and analyzing what would be the perfect vehicle to promote the film.
That led me almost assuredly to believe that May 6 would be the weekend the "Beyond" trailer was released. And a couple of "sources" even "verified" that after-the-fact. But even with so many disparate facts seemingly coming together to make me right — I was wrong.
Could I have been right? Sure. Just like you could be right. But there was far more plausibility in my May 6 prediction, even in hindsight, than what you provide here. And after-the-fact sources are worthless — unless you have a high-placed source who has provided you accurate before-the-fact information in the past.
I won't be snarky and say this kind of sourcing is Journalism 101, because really it's not. This is high-level work, and it's not easy. And sometimes we really want to believe that if we conclude something, that it must be right. And when some people we talk to, that we share this story with (instead of having them share it with us) nod their head in agreement like a good yes-man, we really want to pat ourselves on the back.
I've fallen into that trap many times, and I'm sure I will fall into it again. Sometimes I've been lucky and things have worked out, or I might have had a weak story together, but it was just strong enough to end up being true. Or I get burned.
The fact is that no matter what Axanar might be doing with the screenplay, it's not really going to do anything more than try to move a little bit of the advantage back to them in the negotiating table — and maybe even try to make the studios happy without having to give up everything, which is what I believe we're all quite comfortable in saying that CBS and Paramount going for.
That is definitely pure speculation, and I agree. But it's not the only remaining.
Last edited:
Its an interesting theory, but I think the judge has got W&S's number wrt/ trying to shift the grounds away from the simple facts of what Axanar did leading up to the lawsuit, and he seems to have pulled the plug on every attempt to make it about something else. He even gave validity to the "final" script as something to review for comparability, in effect rejecting the concept that the work still can be "born" in the future.
I think for all practical purposes the "Axanar is transformative because see we changed it" argument can't be created anymore. This doesn't speak to your prediction about their *choice of strategy*. You may be totally right about what they were hoping to do. *That* would an entertaining train wreck
Exactly. That's why, if ANYTHING, they might make some adjustments as a way to put some sugar on a potential settlement. That is ALSO what Ranahan, Peters, Burnett, Bawden and everyone has said they would like to have from the very beginning.
Carlos keeps believing that Ranahan is planting seeds for a fair use defense in her MTDs, and maybe there are some things that she might have done to maybe try to bolster a potential fair use defense in the future — but one of them is NOT to say "it's a mockumentary." If she changes the definition later, like in a defense, so be it. But planting any seeds like that in an MTD is worthless, because if this goes to trial, it's in front of a jury, not this judge.
If she was trying to position herself for anything in the MTD, it was for settlement. And as I've said multiple times, the ruling on the MTD will fully open the door to see where everyone's position of power is in the settlement negotiations. If the defense wins a few pieces, they might be able to squeeze something out. But if the plaintiffs get the whole MTD denied, they aren't going to stop until they get exactly what they want — and from EVERYTHING I hear, it's complete annihilation. No studio, no fan-film, no Prelude online, no money, no conventions, and no more Peters and maybe any Does doing anything publicly that involves Star Trek again.
If Axanar actually retooled the script in the last 4 months and submits that to L&L in discovery as the "Locked Axanar script as of August 2015" - and W&S then defend it - there COULD be California Bar actions brought against W&S for doing that. If she's that stupid to try and attempt a 'legal maneuver' like that and caught at it, and caught she'll be dismissed from the firm and possibly dis-Bared in California.
ANY version of the script submitted that's dated AFTER the date the lawsuit was filed by C/P would probably be objected to and not admitted into evidence as it's not material to the case C/P has brought. As Michael has said it's Axanar Productions/Peters actions PRIOR to the date of the lawsuit filing that will be examined by the court as to whether or Axanar/Peters did Infringe on C/P's Star Trek copyright.
(And if they were somehow retooling it in the months leading up and prior to the date that C/P_ actually filed suit - THAT would be an interesting fact - but ANY retooling of the script AFTER the date the lawsuit was filed is immaterial to this case.)
The suggestion that Team Axanar may now re-tool their 'best Star Trek movie ever made' into a 'mockumentary' makes sense, as Carlo describes it. However, what I enjoyed about 'Prelude' was that it was relatively unusual and innovative within what I'd seen Star Trek-wise but the very idea of stretching that format into a feature-length running time is laughable. Man alive that would be dull.
I dunno, Ken Burns does okay.
Ken Burns writes about things people are connected to on this planet. I think that gives his work legs that wouldn't replicate in a mocumentary rewrite of a game spinoff of a tv fiction.
Honestly, the only thing Prelude pseudo-documentary reminded me of stylistically was Starship Troopers. And that *was* social satire.
Last edited:
I'm still trying to figure out how, Mike Bawden, the guy in charge of PR for the Axanar didn't know about this whole Valkyrie Studios thing. You would think Peters would be keeping him up to date about everything going on their, so he can keep the fans up to date.
I read the last Axanar blog post and it did seem like Alec Peters was just using it as an excuse to talk about how much better they are than Continues. Bawden seemed to be trying to keep it about crowdfunding in general, but Peters just kept going back to how bad Continues was at crowdfunding.
I almost feel a little bad for Bawden, it seems to me like he's trying to do a good job, but he's stuck dealing with Alec Peters, who makes that very hard.
I read the last Axanar blog post and it did seem like Alec Peters was just using it as an excuse to talk about how much better they are than Continues. Bawden seemed to be trying to keep it about crowdfunding in general, but Peters just kept going back to how bad Continues was at crowdfunding.
I almost feel a little bad for Bawden, it seems to me like he's trying to do a good job, but he's stuck dealing with Alec Peters, who makes that very hard.
So, they might be thinking that reworking the "locked" Axanar script into a so-called mockumentary might kick the legs from under Plaintiffs' infringement claim? I don't see how that would ever be effective. Shifting gears after the fact doesn't seem like a tactic that the judge would fall for. He's a pretty sharp guy.
Besides, making the Axanar film in the image of Prelude would result in not much more than an episode of Oprah with cuts to fancy CGI FX shots. Donors might love it, and bless their hearts, they'd finally get their movie. Not the one they paid for, but a movie nonetheless.
But it would take an exceptional script and a super-exceptional director to pull that off. Not to mention that since the lawsuit no SAG actor who values his career would touch this thing with a ten foot pole.
Our friend LFIM has, in my opinion, screwed the pooch. He thinks he's dipped in Teflon, but I just don't see it happening.
Slimy is as slimy does, SIR.
He will still have to give the money back if he doesn't produce what people backed him up for. Who the heck would want to see a mockumentary. This moron is going to lose his shirt and he deserves to.
- Status