CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Pixar does amazing and emotional stories in 7 minutes. And none of them rely on a preexisting universe.
In other words: they are about to introduce the world, the characters, the conflict, and a satisfying resolution all well within the Star Trek Guidelines.
If your goal is to exactly recreate what Star Trek has done in the past, sure, the guidelines will prevent you from doing that. But, if your goal is to tell a compelling story set in the Star Trek universe... The guidelines don't prevent that at all. That's all on the creativity of the production.
In other words: they are about to introduce the world, the characters, the conflict, and a satisfying resolution all well within the Star Trek Guidelines.
If your goal is to exactly recreate what Star Trek has done in the past, sure, the guidelines will prevent you from doing that. But, if your goal is to tell a compelling story set in the Star Trek universe... The guidelines don't prevent that at all. That's all on the creativity of the production.
So say the painters and photographers.
Uhm what? No fan film can compete financially with a multi-billion dollar behemoth like CBS. The whole Axanar lawsuit was specifically addressing profiting off an existing IP without license, not to mention significant copyright infringement.
Orville is competing with Discovery. It combines the nostalgia factor of 80's-90's TV scifi with big budget television production and cheery, lighthearted episodic drama with a bit of comedy.
NBC and Syfy are competing with CBS.
Yes, its certainly plausible that a studio that got its start making fan films can, with enough funding and persistence, eventually compete with the major studios. Everyone starts from somewhere. Generating your own niche SF franchise for youtube views is not competition.
I'd respect CBS more if they did. (It would SUCK, but I'd respect the for it.) At least then fans would actually know where they stand.
No, because your argument was about people doing as they please under their legal rights, whereas Anne Rice has no legal right to harass people.
So how do the Guidelines qualify as an "extraordinary amount of leeway" if they don't come close to doing what others have already done?
Your argument seems to be that I don't have the right to state who's decision I agree more with, which I reject.
Neither of us said that, so yes, you are putting words in our mouths. I was specifically quoting Vic in the context of 15 minutes, and replied to the 30 minute comment separately.
The argument is not whether or not there are ANY good stories that can be told in that time frame. Good stories can be told in the span of a 30-second commercial. The problem is that if we restricted fan films to 30 seconds, most stories could not be told in that time. 30 minutes isn't as extreme, but it does exclude forms of storytelling that can't be accommodated in that time span.
Depending on the story, I'm not sure it would still be a good story after compressing it down, for a myriad of reasons (pacing, related subplots that explore a topic from different angles, proper character development, et cetera). Having read the book Dune, for example, I find the theatrical film to be virtually unwatchable for all the scenes they cut out of it. (And boy are the cuts painfully obvious in that film.)
I don't know about Star Trek, but I've seen a few episodes of Doctor Who that really suffered when they were cut down by 10 to 15 minutes.
He co-wrote several of the Star Trek Continues episodes, and has story credits for many more. He also wrote a couple of short films.
Fine. Start a single-frame fan film contest. Love to see the stories told in that time frame.
I wasn't talking about fan films competing with CBS. Please reread the message, including what I was replying to.
Right.
This is exactly what I was trying to say. It doesn't seem like we're actually disagreeing on anything here.
But I though "Everyone starts from somewhere." What changed in the last...um...sentence?
Couldn't have said it better myself.
OK, sorry I did that, and I'm glad to hear I was not correct.
Why should a for-profit company care if it has competitors?!?
No, I wasn't arguing anything. I was providing an example of someone who does not allow fans to use their IP. I didn't say she has a right to harass people or that harassment was right.
She has a right to let people use her IP or not. She chooses to not let people use her IP. That's a fact, not an argument.
Why do the guidelines have to provide an "extraordinary amount of leeway"?
Again, not arguing that you don't have a right to state who's decision you agree with. Clearly, you are going to state it anyway.
To reiterate: so one person decides to do one thing with their rights, why should that affect someone else's choice?
What you are suggesting is that because one person made decision X, all must follow that decision.
You just answered your own question. Competition can affect profits; you don't need a degree in accounting or business to figure that one out.
New Axanar comic on FanFilmFactor
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/05/04/new-axanar-fan-comic-released/
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/05/04/new-axanar-fan-comic-released/
Fine. Start a single-frame fan film contest. Love to see the stories told in that time frame.
I've seen amazing pictures that tell far more than some can tell in a two-hour movie. You ever hear the phrase "a picture's worth a thousand words?" Of course the idea of a one frame fan film contest is ridiculous, but someone who is really creative can still manage to tell an amazing story in one shot. It starts with a great idea, an amazing cinematographer and good actors. You don't even need a line of dialogue in order to convey what you need to. Regardless of however you might feel about The Last Jedi, there is an amazing shot of Luke (if you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about) which conveys so much in a beautiful shot with amazing acting. The expression on Hamill's face speaks volumes. And there's no dialogue. Just Hamill. Some gorgeous lighting and framing. And of course John Williams' score. It tells an entire story. Right there. A lifetime, in fact. And the shot is no more than ten seconds.
You don't need 45 minutes to tell a good story. You just need talent. And a story to tell. The length should be irrelevant.
Well, he DID leverage his Star Trek connections for all it was worth, exaggerating his involvement in the writing pf the stories he sold (for which he received Story by credit, not screenwriting credit). Had he not had that to milk he possibly would not have been as successul at fundraising.
Last edited:
I wonder if anyone can get away with arguing that it's 15 minutes Scalosian time.
... sorry, just an attempt at comic relief.
... sorry, just an attempt at comic relief.
But, they might not have enough money left to buy the Scalosian coffee to get the actors to move that fast.
... Oh wait, ... they can't use actors.
- Status