This is true. Once you decide that you're going to revise Trek, doing it with Kirk and Spock is the only way that makes sense.
Fan Film Ideas Used in Pro Productions
- Thread starter Barbreader
- Start date
This is true. Once you decide that you're going to revise Trek, doing it with Kirk and Spock is the only way that makes sense.
Considering the final result, I think the Peter Sellers version is the one that had the greater influence.
Which makes the real bone of contention the question of whether or not a reboot was the way to go in the first place.
The real bone of contention is whether or not fan films should be elevated to such great heights that an insinuation can be made that professionals plagiarize from them. Or that they affected the filmmakers' decision to make a feature film with Kirk and Spock.
. . . . . . broken record . . . . . . broken record . . . . . . broken record . . . . . . broken record . . . . . . broken record . . . . . . broken record . . . . . .
Ah! At least Therin Park references made it into three ST tie-in novels. (Although you should see what the novelists did to it!)
Ditto references to print fanfic. It all depends if the person vetting manuscripts recognises the Easter egg, and how blatant it is. Way back when Jean Lorrah's "TNG: Metamorphosis" came out, she was asked to remove an Andorian guest character, so she made him an original Theskian, related to Andorians but more gregarious. But references to his homeworld, gods, traditions etc., were all homages to a Leslie Fish fanfic about Andorians!
So the next question is, can we consider Peter Seller's Casino Royale a high grade fan film parody?
I wasn't suggesting otherwise, I was simply pointing out that if any fanfilms had influence, it'd be Phase 2, and then only insofar as their stated popularity and downloads (which were reported in the press) may have made some one think there was some life in TOS after all.
I'm not saying that's what happened, or even that it was a major influence, just that it may have been one thing among many, if it at all (which I agree, isn't especially likely).
I'm yet to meet any fanfilm producers who honestly believe what they're doing has any influence on CBS, though I'm sure some probably exist.
I wasn't saying you were.
No, but in hindsight I wasn't nearly specific enough in my comment, hence the clarification.I wasn't saying you were.
We took a tour of Paramount studios, thanks to their graciousness. So, yes, I'd say they more than know who we are. And yes to the rest, without giving any details that I am not permitted to...
Hollywood doesn't have to resort to taking ideas from fanfilm producers. You think an entertainment machine with a budget of millions of dollars and established screenwriters is gonna look to kids filming Trek in their garages, with wood and cardboard sets? Yeah, right. Granted, not all fan productions are like that, but you get my point.
Cawley was on JJ's set because JJ needed someone who would drink his arsenic and still put on a happy face, and tell everyone what JJ wanted him to say... that Star Trek fans would love this movie, and canon would be honored. Enter Cawley's gushing review of JJ's film, and praise for the man himself.
But just because Cawley was on the set, does not mean the Hollywood machine is stealing ideas from fan productions. They simply don't need to.
Cawley was on JJ's set because JJ needed someone who would drink his arsenic and still put on a happy face, and tell everyone what JJ wanted him to say... that Star Trek fans would love this movie, and canon would be honored. Enter Cawley's gushing review of JJ's film, and praise for the man himself.
But just because Cawley was on the set, does not mean the Hollywood machine is stealing ideas from fan productions. They simply don't need to.
Putting aside the cracks at James, the point is valid. It would be far simpler to just throw a few thousand dollars at the respective fanfilm producers and buy the ideas outright, even those that they might technically already own. Not to mention cheaper than even talking with the legal department on the phone, never mind actually having to contend with a lawsuit, regardless of merit.
Ideas can't be copyrighted. Any fan film producer who tried to go after Paramount for stealing their ideas would be opening a hornet's nest. After all, they're using Paramount's trademarked and copyrighted to the hilt franchise without permission, and they're going to accuse Paramount of lifting a few plot points, which can't be copyrighted and most likely are just simple coincidence?
The act of getting into a business relationship with fan filmmakers would actually put Paramount at greater risk of a lawsuit than the current "look the other way" policy. Right now, Paramount can ignore the fan films until or if they become a nuisance, and then smack them with a C&D letter if they feel threatened. It's cheaper. Trust me, I was involved as an expert witness in an abritration over just such an contract in the videogame industry, and sometimes a contract that was meant to protect you can come back and strangle you.
The act of getting into a business relationship with fan filmmakers would actually put Paramount at greater risk of a lawsuit than the current "look the other way" policy. Right now, Paramount can ignore the fan films until or if they become a nuisance, and then smack them with a C&D letter if they feel threatened. It's cheaper. Trust me, I was involved as an expert witness in an abritration over just such an contract in the videogame industry, and sometimes a contract that was meant to protect you can come back and strangle you.
Paramount really should pursue something resembling George Lucas' relationship with the Star Wars fanfilm makers. Have a meaningless award show on Spike, encourage the creativity, make everyone happy, and have the fanfilms serve as free advertising for the official product.
There are a lot more than ten stories, but that may be all that you can tell to sell tickets and soap.
It refers to what the stories boil down to: love, love lost, betrayal, revenge, etc. It's a gross oversimplification, but the idea is basically sound.
I disagree. I've written stories that are coherant, and not classifiable in that way without distortion, but people always comment that if would be better if... then they rewrite it to fit that mold. I wrote a play that focused on two platonic friends and his journey to self-acceptance, but everyone who saw it wanted me to get rid of the platonic woman friend and focus on , 'the love story'... his relationship with his girlfriend. She was a user, but because she was his love interest they also saw her as beautiful, sweet and wonderful, and disliked the platonic friend even though I showed her behavior as kind and generous, and the instructions for casting said she had to be at least as attractive as the girlfriend. The girlfriend attacked her without cause, the platonic friend turned the other cheek since from her standpoint it wasn't a competition, but people didn't see the girlfriend as nasty, lying and manipulating. They believed her and all the nasty stuff she said, without any justification, about the platonic friend.
Which tells you as much about real life as it does about theater.
Similar threads
