CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens

I hope they fix the sound editing before releasing it. Everyone sounds like they had a different quality microphone.

 

Too little variety in camera angles (it's like they put different lenses on and didn't move the camera). They STILL couldn't get the eyelines right: e.g. Garth looks camera right to Kirk and Kirk looks camera right in response. So much for "pro" anything. This stuff is NOT hard, people!

 

It does happen in professional productions, and if they spot an incorrect eyeline they often flip the shot to keep it consistent. There's even a shot in ST09 where Nero's scarred ear jumps to the other side of his head because the screen direction was more important.

 

Watching Spock's arms in the clip is interesting too. He goes through three different poses during the beam in.

 

To be fair, at the very end of "Whom Gods Destroy" after Garth has received treatment he doesn't recognize Kirk. So he probably doesn't have any memory of the stuff he did during his illness, and Kirk has obviously chosen to pretend the whole thing didn't happen.

 

Spock reintroduces himself during that final scene, however.

 

Confirmed. I was going to say Capt G. didn't remember due to the treatment (still a possibility), but he was introduced to all three:

[Treatment room]​

(The inmates are getting their jabs.)
CORY: Will intramuscular injection be satisfactory?
MCCOY: Intravenous is indicated unless circumstances make it impossible.
CORY: How long before it takes effect, Doctor McCoy?
MCCOY: Reversal of arterial and brain damage should begin almost immediately.
(Garth is having a treatment in the chair.)
KIRK: Captain Garth, I'm James Kirk.
SPOCK: I am Mister Spock, science officer on a Starship.
KIRK: The starship Enterprise.
GARTH: Starship. Starship.
KIRK: Yes, sir, the Enterprise. I'm the captain. (Kirk and Garth shake hands) Can I help?
GARTH: No, Captain. The medicine seems to be taking effect. I can manage. It's very encouraging. Should I know you, sir?
KIRK: No, Captain. No.​

 

Thank you for the confirmations, gentlemen!

 

The "keeper of the faith" would not make such an error.

 

Darn it, you're right. Well, unless a story point of the vignette is that Garth can no longer form short-term memories then Mr. "Keeper of the Faith" and "Lord of All Real Star Trek Fans" has made one heck of an error.

 

Only one?

 

Who directed that? RMB? If so, he should know better.

 

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying that if you actively curtail projects by externally imposing unnecessary restrictions, then you expect to reap the benefits of people who had to struggle on in spite of your active opposition, that doesn't exactly seem fair. Not that anyone here has any authority to impose those restrictions to begin with. Only CBS/Paramount does.

I appreciate that the system has its potential for abuse, but I don't think the solution is to assume abuse and prevent willing participants from supporting the projects they like. I'm happy to talk as much as you want about methods and practices to mitigate risk to patrons and help the producers not to bite off more than they can chew, though.

This doesn't make sense. If the film was never funded, there are no special patrons to exclusively release it to.

If they "get paid", it's a violation of the Guidelines, which is beyond the scope of my original comments. I've never supported for-profit/commercial fan production without a license.

Strawman. I was responding to comments that crowdfunding should be restricted to levels lower that those permitted by CBS. It has nothing to do with requiring people to fund a project, and everything to do with requiring them NOT to fund a project.

Seems to me your beef is with GoFundMe, not fan films. I'm not sure why fan film makers need to personally solve crowdfunding, though.

Since the coming of first Adpocalypse, most YouTubers are now funded almost entirely by Patreon. These days, you get less money from ads, and it's much harder to get monetized in the first place. Nobody's going to make any money directly from adds on a fan film.

I'd be fine with the elimination of perks in general from crowdfunding. In most cases, they only serve as a resource drain for legitimate projects anyway. Only situation where perks make sense for me is if the perk is also the thing that's being crowdfunded. (For example, if you're crowdfunding uniforms for a film, and the perk is one of the completed uniforms.)

Not at all. I'm just saying that someone who forces everyone else NOT to donate to a fan film but has no problem watching that fan film, completed in spite of their efforts, is kind of a prick.

This seems to be about acting in bad faith. If there were no potential for abuse, would you still object to crowdfunding? 'Cause I'm more than happy to talk about how the community can organize to mitigate abusive crowdfunding...

 

I was under the impression that he was saving Alec money by allowing him to place a bulk order that reduces the price per uniform, then reimbursing him for his share of the order. If so, he's not directly supporting Axanar financially, but he is allowing them to obtain costumes at a lower cost. Then again, I tend to think of Lane as more of a Kool-Aid drinker than an active participant in AP's misdeeds, so make of that what you will.

 

Regardless, the camera is still crossing the line. It's filmmaking 101.

 

Mike Bawden donated to Interlude which is now over $3000. Not sure if it is the Mike Bawden:
https://www.gofundme.com/profile/mike-bawden-aw962