CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
No. I'm really not. I'm making a point. How can I compare what Peter's has done with his million dollar budget and what Paramount does with theirs? He hasn't made a movie, they have.
It's not going to get made.
You can let him post for himself and not put words into his mouth.
The very question lacks a foundation: how do you determine the fans hated something? How many fans does it take? Who determines who a fan is?
I don't really care much what those that wrap themselves in cloaks of being a "Fan" think. "Fans" are, whether they know it or not, bound and determined to ruin any enjoyment of every franchise because it's not what "they" want.
So, no. I'm not going to spend a page saying what "fans" want, what matters to the "fans." I honestly don't really care. I just want compelling stories. And that is speaking as myself and not for "fans."
There's no "there" there. Alec Peters lost that studio a year ago after sinking nearly three-quarters of a million dollars into it and never filming a single frame of Axanar in it.
Those crowdfunding numbers are documented at AxaMonitor. Those numbers don't include people who donated directly to Axanar via its website, PayPal, etc. However, they do represent the largest share of donors.
Thanks!
So, we're only talking about thousands of donors here, a tiny minority of fandom overall, if by fandom we mean people who actually watch Star Trek.
CBS RELENTS, allowing fan production Temporal Anomaly to be released in three parts later this year. The movie’s original trailer had at least four instances where producer Samuel Cockings (Trekyards) failed to follow CBS’ fan film guidelines. Read the update at AxaMonitor »
That trailer was ... awful. Nice temporal swirly thing alert thingy though.
It doesn't matter if the project started before the guidelines were issued. There is no grandfather exemption for projects started before the guidelines were issued. The guidelines simply help producers understand what might or might not get you sued. As I mentioned before (somewher in the deepest bowels of this thread) there's really nothing that would stop CBS from suing someone who met all the guideline standards. It's the LAW that counts in court, not the guidelines. I also noted that it would be a dick move on their part. I don't think van Citters is that kind of guy. In fact, I think he's been remarkably tolerant about things other IP holders have been really hard-assed about. However, there's nothing to say that A) he won't get fed up and decide that dealing with the whole issue isn't worth his time and decide to adopt a zero tolerance policy or B) that he quits, dies or gets fired and his successor decides to go a different direction.
If Axanar was made as planned even if it wasn't great and even if in the process AP built a studio he could use later on for for-profit work then I won't think the donors would have cared.
However, AP got guidelines created that HE asked for that has now prevented him from producing the planned film so at this point due to his actions donor cannot get what they were promised.
However what donors would complain about and what CBS/P would complain about are different. In the end though I don't think any donor would have cared if AP walked away at the end of this with a for-profit business if he had produced what was promised. He didn't and now he can't.
The Facebook post linked to by AM is fascinating and should be read. Interestingly, CBS is allowing a non-public release (just to backers, crew, cast, and backers’ DVD perks) of the 50 minute film as it was when it was about to be released before CBS called. Then there will be a public release split in 2 or 3 parts, with a different soundtrack and with different opening and closing scenes.
I guarantee that non-public release will be on YouTube, probably within calendar year 2018.
And I agree that a lot of fans wouldn't have cared if AP profited but that's more because it's not the Outrage of the Month™. In a 24 hour news cycle where everyone's hair is on fire, a few smoldering bits of fluff don't stand out.
It also requires a smidgen of explanation, the kind of smidgen that so many of us have no time to bother with . And it's how you get insanity like Pizzagate – because people don't stop and think about basic stuff since we're always being bombarded.
However, I do think a lot of people would be outraged if they realized exactly what was going on if that were to happen.
- No permission to use ST IP to raise $$
- Does so anyway
- Creates a for-profit business
- Makes $$
- IP holder sees $0
and "Backers got nothing"
Cue axafans going "we should get the same treatment"
You can conflate two topics and express your own point at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.
AP is obviously a less than ideal representation. Thus, we end up talking about his specific failings rather than whether or not a film like the one he promised is something that should be done in the first place. In my opinion, the former is a dead horse topic.
I guess it's a matter of point of view. Will he make "Axanar", the version of the film he pitched to everyone that got them to donate? No. Will he produce a fan film called "Axanar"? I don't think anyone but AP can say for sure.
You're being a hypocrite. He doesn't need you to speak for him anymore that he needs me to. I simply articulated what I thought he meant, and explicitly labeling it as such, so no one was misled. If I'm wrong, he's fully capable of correcting me himself. A conversation need not be hamstrung perpetually waiting for a particular party to clarify what they meant.
I suspect you're just using these questions to deflect further conversation and you're not genuinely interested in answering them, but I'll bite...
The fans themselves, I guess. A better question would be "How do you determine who a fan is?" It's entirely possible, of course, that the term "fan", as defined by the public, is not a useful term of business for a franchise owner, but as far as I'm concerned they can always make up their own term. "Evangelizing Customer", perhaps?
Through some sort of polling, or perhaps a user review aggregate. How else would you realistically determine that?
How may fans would it take for something to matter to the majority of them? A majority, I'd presume.
You seem to be the one standing in judgment of who is a "fan". That's understandable, though, given the lengths you'd go to defend guidelines that explicitly redefine the word "fan" to mean "amateur".
For me, if someone says they're a "fan" of something, I see no reason to take them at face value.
You misread my message. I said that you were capable of filling a page on why people SHOULD care if fan film makers make a profit, not whether they actually DO care.
So, I put this question to you: If you personally felt that a franchise you loved were being mismanaged and that those producing crowd funded fan films where doing a better job producing quality content and respecting the franchise, would you personally care if those making the films made a profit? Or would you just be glad they were making the content you wanted?
Would that be Axanar getting the same treatment, or fan films in general? Because the former is bound by a settlement they agreed to, whereas the latter are not.
I feel pretty sure.
Nope.
Meh.
Will it be like a Congress of Fans? They'll get together decide that you have to have watched X and Y or your not a fan? That if you like A but not B, then you're a fan?
Go over to a Star Wars thread... Or a Star Trek thread... there's lots of fans accusing other fans of not being a "real" fan.
Why would determining what fans exclusively thought of something tell you? Wouldn't you be more interested in the audience as a whole?
How do you know you have a majority of the fans when you can't define who is a fan?
I'm standing in judgement of uber fans who scream to high heaven when decisions are made they don't like. That cling to a fiction universe like it's fact.
I don't think I have ever said that the guidelines say that the word fan somehow means amateur. You'll have to back that up with a quote...
If you are making a fan film, you are an amateur filmmaker. You're doing it for the love of the franchise. Not necessarily because you want to be a professional filmmaker.
You can be a fan of Star Trek, and be a professional. Look at Simon Pegg.
Fan, amateur and professional are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not capable. I don't care enough. I wouldn't make a few sentences.
I would care if fan films are making a profit. Sure. They are stealing something that's not theirs. They are operating on the backs of OTHER people's work without permission or license. I don't like theft. I believe in copyright law. So, yeah, it would bother me.
Listen, Star Trek Enterprise was shit. You know I did? I found something else to watch. I stopped watching a shit show and moved on. And then, JJ Abrams made Star Trek, and I went, and I loved it. Of course, Star Trek into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond are shit, but, that doesn't mean, when I have time, I won't try Discovery.[/quote][/quote]
Yes times infinity! No take-backsies!
Huh? How does this even make sense given this later comment I made in the same message?:
Oh, I see, I forgot the word "not". Fair enough.
So your point is that the True Scotsman Fallacy exists???
Depends on what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure how relevant that is from the perspective of whether or not fans should object to certain practices by fan film makers.
When you poll them, you ask if they're fans. Or you could just poll the audience and not worry if they're fans. Now I see where you're going with this.
Yes, but you seem to have injected that arbitrarily into the conversation. It seems unrelated to the message you were replying to.
Fair enough. I think I may have mistaken you for someone else. I apologize.
/me looks at the length of Professor Zoom's comment.
Riiiiiiiiight!
Did you not understand that this is the kind of stuff I was saying you could write pages of?!?
Backers do NOT need to sue Alec themselves. They do NOT need to spend their own money to hire lawyers. All they need to do is spend 5 minutes, 1 time, filling out this web form at the FTC website. If 50 to 100 or so out 10,000+ backers can manage this task, the FTC will look into this. They sued a $122k kickstarter rip-off, so a $1.2M+ rip-off would certainly interest them. If they do look into it, I don't see it going any other way than legal action resulting in years of injunctions and an order for restitution. All of that would cost backers $0.
An order for restitution wouldn't guarantee refunds, but it is important to get it on the books. Alec would have to prove inability to pay, which is not as simple as him just saying he can't afford it, to get the order suspended, not eliminated. Injunctions wouldn't guarantee Alec wouldn't harm more consumers in the future, but it would make it very difficult for him and carry more risk for him.
There really needs to be a sustained discussion about what backers can do about this, because misinformation aimed at discouraging backers from taking action is killing any momentum. There should be a sticky thread at the Axamonitor group that provides every piece of information a backer would need to file a consumer complaint, including links to complaint forms, a sample complaint that includes all of the contact info they'd need for Alec's businesses, links to court cases against crowdfunding rip-offs, a Q&A to combat misinformation, etc.
There is precedent for that. There was a kickstarter project for the collest cooler. They raised $13M but due to financial mismanagement were unable to deliver coolers to all backers. Oregon Department of Justice and the FTC have stepped in and they have strict deadlines now to deliver to have to refund a portion of the money.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2017/06/coolest_cooler_settles_with_or.html
- Status