• 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.
Indysolo said:
Click to expand...

re the AP text in the excerpt above:

a) People who HAVE accomplished anything in their lives start from the intellectual content of the information before them, NOT from demanding, as you do, that the speaker prove that they are a peer based on emotionally determined criteria you wish to set. Your assertion is from the bad side of rhetoric, and every single person in the world except you sees it for what it is. Need to google rhetoric? Take your time, we understand.

b) Have some humility. Writing, as any art, is an accomplishment, but to be somewhat coarse about it so you might understand, there are also people in the world who actually create the tech and futures you hold your play-pretend costume adventures within, who actually create the tools you only know how to direct people operating, and on and on. You are not on the top of any stack, you are a co-participant with an emphasis in one dimension of the whole.

And get this, those other people are not telling you your arguments are invalid because you cannot explain the insides of your tools, or the math of the scientific concepts you write about, or because you do not have a reputation in their fields or among the users of their accomplishments.

The world is full of accomplished people who do not have to be approved by you, or "have great reputations in Star Trek", in order to be validated. And they have points of view which merit respect simply for the sake of the intellectual content of their arguments, by default, without proof of anything, much less their personal credentials. The evidence is in literally everything around you. Try looking around yourself sometime.

c) You may be walking on very thin ice if your books and records do not reflect what you have asserted in the press and in court about Axanar. Pridefully dissing everyone on earth who raises a question has the potential of being seen as hypocritical for the rest of your life across the entirety of people whose opinion you value, if your assertions are less than 100% true. And everyone is seeing this turning point, or will be seeing it soon, because it is the obvious correlate of ever shifting claims and refusal to answer any questions. Don't kid yourself.

You would be doing your future self a big favor by getting over your present self asap.


--------------------------
we now return you to your regularly scheduled program, "what's next in the real world of trek"... :lol:
 
Last edited:
carlosp said:
The thing to understand here is that "success" is defined in very different ways on different platforms. For example, network TV shows demand high ratings among specific demographics at very targeted points in a schedule. This was one of the obstacles TOS faced, and led to its ultimate demise.

TNG was successful because it blew up the paradigm. By syndicating, it gave local TV stations the choice about when to air the show (and even to air it multiple times during a week). It created an entire new platform for scifi/fantasy shows to be successful.

Interestingly, Paramount's choice to abandon the syndication model in favor of using VOY as the flagship of the UPN network was, in retrospect, a mistake, because it forced the show back into the old network paradigm in which Star Trek originally failed. VOY did make it through seven seasons, but only barely; its ratings were awful. UPN had to merge with WB, creating the CW, in order to survive.

Meanwhile, premium cable networks (e.g., HBO and Showtime), and even Netflix, measure success only partly by viewership for individual shows but more importantly, by how much a show builds its brand and increases or maintains its subscriber base. I don't know what CBS All-Access' actual business model is, but if it's more like Netflix, then the new series won't necessarily need to pull the kind of numbers that a typical network show would have to in order to be considered a "success."

Fuller has proved himself adept at creating series with fanatical fan bases. The audience numbers may be small relative to typical network TV but they may be perfect for online demographics.
Click to expand...

This. :)
 
Michael Hinman said:
Well, it's a descriptor. By her definition, it's something that is filmed in a documentary style, but it's of fictional content. Thus, it's not a documentary, but it's mocking the style ... using the colloquialism of "mockumentary."
Click to expand...

Mock also means 'not the real thing but resembles it' or 'fake'.
Mock leather.
Mock turtle.
It's fallen out of favour in contemporary speech. But that's it's meaning.
Now thinking about Axanar....
 
Unfavorable Semicircle > TALES OF STAR TREK AXANAR

Unfavorable%20Semicircle_zps0vfarrzu.jpg


Favorable Semicircle > https://twitter.com/StarTrekAxanar

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Albinator said:
Prelude is, by definition, a mockumentary: a mock documentary. That's it.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be a mock documentary of the subject Star Trek? What's so mock documentary about a fictional war within the Star Trek universe? Those were actors in characters except for the voice over. They're not like Katie Couric and Matt Lauer making a mock documentary there.
 
Campe98 said:
We've spent way to much time on this argument. Let. It. Go. Everyone.
Click to expand...

Please take your own advice.

The question i have is (and I brought this up like 200 pages ago)-- is a mockumentary alone transformative enough to be considered fair use? I'd think not, but it's a valid question, and one i've not seen addressed to my satisfaction.

Because if it was to any degree, they could argue that the full film was going to be a mockumentary that takes the Trek franchise and puts a unique spin on it, essentially providing its own form of satire on the fictional universe.

I don't know how well that would hold up in court, but I'm no expert on fair use and what exactly constitutes "transformative" and to what degree one must do so to be considered fair use. In the end I think a lot of it is subjective.
 
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