• 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.
AudioGene said:
Update: Just as quickly as fans were happy to hear this news, CBS announced it will only be available for USA residents through a paid subscription of CBS All Access for $6/mo while the rest of the world will presumably be able to watch it with their regular cable/satellite subscription services.
Click to expand...

"presumably" Why are you presuming that?

CBS announced that people could get it for $6 a month instead of pay several times that having to go through cable companies. See that's my take on it. I don't pay a cent to Cable or satelite, I pay Hulu Netflix and CBS all access. I pay well under $30 for what I want. I also spend about $30 a month on itunes purchases to round it out. That's alacarte programming. I pay for what I want.

The cable model is dying, and in it's wake CBS's experiment is leading to us getting a new show. Do you think they'd spend the money needed to put out a SciFi show when they can make another Mike and Molly or two broke girls or NCIS: Delaware with less cost and more viewers? The choice wasn't Star Trek on broadcast or Trek on AllAcess, it was No Trek or Trek on AllAcess.
 
AudioGene said:
First off, it's an opinion piece and if you disagree then great, it's your opinion too. Not sure if you saw all of the negative comments on the Star Trek Beyond Trailer on Youtube but they actually had to take it down and repost it in hopes of a better outcome which never happened. Most of the comments about Star Trek Beyond are not very flattering thus far. And most Star Trek fans I know hated Into Darkness.

Yea I agree poor choice of word "jealous" by the author. I changed it to "threatened".
Click to expand...
At the very least try inserting some facts into your misleading "opinion piece" that you're doubling down on because without facts your "opinion piece" is baseless mental masturbation fluff. Ever hear of the term objective journalism? Your article isn't it.
 
steam235 said:
The cable model is dying, and in it's wake CBS's experiment is leading to us getting a new show. Do you think they'd spend the money needed to put out a SciFi show when they can make another Mike and Molly or two broke girls or NCIS: Delaware with less cost and more viewers? The choice wasn't Star Trek on broadcast or Trek on AllAcess, it was No Trek or Trek on AllAcess.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that's why I choose not to watch Trek 2017. I hate all this a la carte stuff that the networks are trying to move us to. I have no love for my cable company, but this argument that I get to buy only the programming I watch rings hollow to me. I buy AllAccess for $6/mo and I get lots of programming with my Trek that I have no intention of watching, BUT - I do get to give CBS an extra $6, so I guess I should be happy about that. At the end of the day, I fear if the cable model does die, we'll just be replacing our cable bill with lots of monthly subscriptions that end up just as expensive or moreso than what we pay now.
 
AudioGene said:
Of course the article is on the side of the fans and fanfilms.
Click to expand...
The problem being, the Axanar crew are not on the side of fan-films. If you dig just a little bit into the history of this mess, you'll find that they bashed most (all??) other fan-film projects in one way or another, all the while touting why donors should give to the Axanar film and not the others.

Axanar claims to be non-profit, but only because they claim they won't charge admission to go see it in a theater. (I wonder if they'd sell DVDs of the finished film??) But non-profit doesn't mean "no financial gain". They are making money -- salary -- from fan donations. That's financial gain.
 
A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees said:
Sadly, that's why I choose not to watch Trek 2017. I hate all this a la carte stuff that the networks are trying to move us to. I have no love for my cable company, but this argument that I get to buy only the programming I watch rings hollow to me. I buy AllAccess for $6/mo and I get lots of programming with my Trek that I have no intention of watching, BUT - I do get to give CBS an extra $6, so I guess I should be happy about that. At the end of the day, I fear if the cable model does die, we'll just be replacing our cable bill with lots of monthly subscriptions that end up just as expensive or moreso than what we pay now.
Click to expand...
Five years from now you might be right. Right now I'm spending alot less than I was with cable. I'm sure telecoms won't let me keep doing that. They'll either hike up internet service costs, or make subscriptions more. But right now paying for what I want is doing well for me. and to be fair I'm paying for AllAcess to watch Supergirl with my daughter. She's 6 and it's nice to have a genre show I watch with her, she's even started to watch flash with me.
 
Just the title of the article is in error: "CBS/Paramount are Patent Trolls - Beyond Bored of Star Trek Reboot" First, this is a copyright case, not a patent case. Might sound the same to laymen, but legally there is a HUGE difference between copyrights and patents (and trademarks) and how each has to be defended.

Second, do you know what a patent troll / copyright troll is??? Not the best source, but from Wikipedia:

A copyright troll is a party (person or company) that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, generally without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution.​

Most such trolls bought the rights and sat on them, doing nothing except seeking out "infringements" they can sue for, and usually offer to settle out of court. As a side bar, and as ironic as it sounds, the lawyer who files the motion on behalf of the Language Creation Society over the Klingon language used to work for a porn site that was noted as a very aggressive copyright troll.

To call CBS / Paramount "trolls" suggests you have not researched the story very well.
 
AudioGene said:
Guys we wrote about this issue to get more exposure. Please share!
https://www.audioholics.com/editori...-i2019m-beyond-bored-of-this-star-trek-reboot
Click to expand...
As a Star Trek fan who's been watching Star Trek first run on NBC since 1969 (yes, it premiered in 1966 - but I was 3 in 1966; and didn't see my first episode that I recall until the age of 6) - I 100% disagree with your analysis of the JJ Abrams reboot films. Ant Star Trek fan who says the original Star Trek (1966-69) wasn't (at times) a face paced action series hasn't really watched TOS - and is probably confusing TOS with TNG and it's style of 40 minute conference room discussions with the final two minute technobabble solution/Picard always preaching about 'Federation Values' and usually being 'right' in the end.

Problem is the JJ films (thankfully) have NOTHING to do with TNG - and it's time TNG fans got over it. Also it's time some of the TOS fans who lionize GR realize all his 'Star Trek is only about social topics' should realize he was pandering to the media to try and paint TOS as more than it really was. Did it occasionally use it's premise top talk about relevant social topics of it's day? Yes. Did it do that in EVERY EPISODE? Hell no. And sometimes TOS was as subtle as a sledge hammer vs a glass window (go watch the TOS episode : Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.)

The most hilarious thing to me though is those calling Prelude to Axanar and the proposed Axanar feature "True Trek" because if you knew anything about GR and how he personally viewed Star Trek - were he still alive, he'd probably be calling Axanar 'Anti-Trek' as neither installment is about 'exploration' or 'the human condition' - Axanar is a War Story and GR was against Star trek being portrayed in a militaristic light (Hell, GR thought the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was too militaristic.)

Now there's many other valid reasons Star Trek and TOS fans may dislike the JJ Abrams reboots - but IMO Mr. Abrams did capture the characters and general action fell of TOS including an aspect that is poor to non-existent in TNG era Star Trek - Humor.

So, AudioGene - before you post another piece on TOS/JJ Abrams and Axanar - you might want your staff to actually watch a few TOS episodes (and read some real background on GR the man); because if anything that piece shows you either haven't - or weren't paying much attention. (IMO of course) :)

[Sorry for the derail - back to the topic at hand.]:whistle:
 
Last edited:
AudioGene said:
Tell me the factual errors and I will gladly research and correct as this article is NOT yet live on our homepage so I welcome constructive feedback to make it more accurate before it debuts.
Click to expand...
It has already "debuted" because it's publicly available. I haven't read the article, so I'm not going to critique it for you. I'm going to respond only to the quote above. I don't know if you call yourself a journalist. I don't know if you call yourself a blogger, which I often regard as a wannabe journalist who can't afford a real editor. And with the state of blogging and journalism on the web today, I wonder what use editors really are because the money they are paid is all too often unapparent in their finished product with missing words, misspellings, bad grammar, unchecked sources, and the sad abandonment of objective reporting. In any case, as a journalist or blogger or just plain amateur writer of articles to "publish" on the web, it is your responsibility to do your own due diligence on research, facts, accuracy, and grammar. I'm not a big believer in the media "beta testing" its output with consumers. That's the media's job and yours. Before making it public.
 
Last edited:
Energy and momentum evolve in a precisely specified way in response to the behavior of spacetime around them. If that spacetime is standing completely still, the total energy is constant; if it’s evolving, the energy changes in a completely unambiguous way.
 
Noname Given said:
Problem is the JJ films (thankfully) have NOTHING to do with TNG - and it's time TNG fans got over it. Also it's time some of the TOS fans who lionize GR realize all his 'Star Trek is only about social topics' should realize he was pandering to the media to try and paint TOS as more than it really was. Did it occasionally use it's premise top talk about relevant social topics of it's day? Yes. Did it do that in EVERY EPISODE? Hell no. And sometimes TOS was as subtle as a sledge hammer vs a glass window (go watch the TOS episode : Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.)
Click to expand...

100% true. This is something that grew in the retellings at all the conventions between the canceling of Trek and the Movies. It did great things for social awareness, having a multi ethnic cast and have some issues episodes. But the "Morality of Trek" and the "Idealism of the future" are all TNG ideas.
 
steam235 said:
the "Morality of Trek" and the "Idealism of the future" are all TNG ideas.
Click to expand...

You can even see some of this happening before TNG. TVH, for example makes a plot point out of the future doing away with money. Which is funny since there are many episodes of TOS where the concept of "credits" are discussed.

Unfortunately, GR was evidently believing what convention goers had been telling him for a decade by then.
 
steam235 said:
100% true. This is something that grew in the retellings at all the conventions between the canceling of Trek and the Movies. It did great things for social awareness, having a multi ethnic cast and have some issues episodes. But the "Morality of Trek" and the "Idealism of the future" are all TNG ideas.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I like Gene Roddenberry, I really do, but this whole Gene's Vision™ thing didn't come about until well after TOS, around the time TNG came into existence. Gene Roddenberry, for all he is lauded, and for his utopian vision of the future (TNG, at least), loved money. This is the man who made up lyrics for the TOS theme so he could get half the credit (and residuals) from the theme song. Lyrics which were clearly never used, and poor Alexander Courage had to accept it, even though his theme was never intended to have lyrics. This is the man who made an IDIC pin so it could be sold as souvenirs. Gene was all about the money.

Gene would have salivated at the idea of a single Star Trek film pulling in half a billion dollars globally. This is what movies are made to do, to make money. All of them are there to make money, from TMP to STID and Beyond (no pun intended). There's no True Vision™ or True Trek™, that's propaganda to get you to buy more stuff from people who no longer get to be relevant in Star Trek. That's what people like Alec Peters does to get you to sink money into his projects, ones that are nowhere near completion years after the money was raised. So no film, but there is a 20 minute prelude, and lots of merchandise you can buy receive in exchange for "donations."

At least CBS/Paramount is honest about wanting to make a profit. The people they hire are some of the best in the business, and they made a polished finished product that brought mass appeal. As a Star Trek fan since 1984, I thoroughly enjoyed the new films. Some people didn't and that's okay, but it doesn't make one of us more "loyal" or "true" than the other.
 
AudioGene said:
Not sure if you saw all of the negative comments on the Star Trek Beyond Trailer on Youtube but they actually had to take it down and repost it in hopes of a better outcome which never happened.
Click to expand...
100% bullshit.

The teaser debuted on December 14, 2015 (days before The Force Awakens opened) and is still on YouTube with nearly 15 million views in 5 months.

"Are the rest of your facts this faulty?"

Neil
 
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