Thanks mate, you beat me to it.
Hi everyone, my name is Matt... the webmaster of TREKZONE .ORG. Any questions, feel free to fire them away!
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Hi everyone, my name is Matt... the webmaster of TREKZONE .ORG. Any questions, feel free to fire them away!
So I watched the interview, and it was worth the time.
One thing I think really affects the public perception which wasn't addressed is the investment of Trek IP money into a long term business asset. I think Mr. Bowden is lumping this into the way he says their talking about future plans "shouldnt have been done" and he does seem to characterize it as the Axanar management merely speculating about future goals rather than really sincerely pursuing them -- that all their talk about a studio and the like by implication was just speculation.
But Axanar pitched that the donors should first build them a studio for future non-Trek uses as well as Trek, and then fund a film. They were very very explicit about this. And most importantly, they spent the money in accordance with this plan.
While CBS/P may not be able to directly address it, I think it is a huge part of the smell test that pushed Axanar into a bad place. Its just way too much money diverted into an investment asset to be ignored. Selling models etc personally I would have seen as unfortunate but not a show stopper for fans, and could be 'walked back' with the studio, as Mr. Bowden puts it.
Taking a surprising level of donor support for completing the film and saying "hey lets build us a business asset" (not just make a company, but build the physical assets of a studio) and make the movie mostly the next phase, and also bill ourselves as intending to be an independent (nonlicensed) professional producer of Trek content, I think in the end sunk it. Saying they had to do this in order to produce what the fans want just doesn't fly.
One thing I think really affects the public perception which wasn't addressed is the investment of Trek IP money into a long term business asset. I think Mr. Bowden is lumping this into the way he says their talking about future plans "shouldnt have been done" and he does seem to characterize it as the Axanar management merely speculating about future goals rather than really sincerely pursuing them -- that all their talk about a studio and the like by implication was just speculation.
But Axanar pitched that the donors should first build them a studio for future non-Trek uses as well as Trek, and then fund a film. They were very very explicit about this. And most importantly, they spent the money in accordance with this plan.
While CBS/P may not be able to directly address it, I think it is a huge part of the smell test that pushed Axanar into a bad place. Its just way too much money diverted into an investment asset to be ignored. Selling models etc personally I would have seen as unfortunate but not a show stopper for fans, and could be 'walked back' with the studio, as Mr. Bowden puts it.
Taking a surprising level of donor support for completing the film and saying "hey lets build us a business asset" (not just make a company, but build the physical assets of a studio) and make the movie mostly the next phase, and also bill ourselves as intending to be an independent (nonlicensed) professional producer of Trek content, I think in the end sunk it. Saying they had to do this in order to produce what the fans want just doesn't fly.
Last edited:
I suppose the obvious is whether you've heard about any other productions being contacted by CBS as Tommy Kraft was.
I haven't, although I did hear rumours that the Enterprise construction project and the ENT-D simulator guy was told to suspend work.
They didn't in the KS Campaign I backed with $75. Had that been mentioned in the Campaign I did back, I WOULD NEVER have pledged a dime.
Just a slight correction to my previous comment, Carlos did mention the building of a studio in an inventory of questions. Its not like it wasn't itemized.
Mr. Bowden invited questions. I guess one on the Axamonitor list could be along the lines of "What did the phrase 'fully independent' as in 'fully independent professional Star Trek production company' mean to the managers of Axanar when they were in the height of proclaiming it in their fundraising and elsewhere in late 2015? Independent of what, exactly? Of IP rights and licensing? Of being an in-house part of CBS/P or licensed by CBS/P, and therefore under the studios directions wrt/ using Trek IP? Independent of having to pass the Trek IP cash value back to the studios?"
Mr. Bowden invited questions. I guess one on the Axamonitor list could be along the lines of "What did the phrase 'fully independent' as in 'fully independent professional Star Trek production company' mean to the managers of Axanar when they were in the height of proclaiming it in their fundraising and elsewhere in late 2015? Independent of what, exactly? Of IP rights and licensing? Of being an in-house part of CBS/P or licensed by CBS/P, and therefore under the studios directions wrt/ using Trek IP? Independent of having to pass the Trek IP cash value back to the studios?"
Last edited:
An admirable effort at damage control by Mike Bowden. Alec's responses were very lacking in his segment, and he did himself no favors with his adversarial tone. I cringed at the arrogance and naivety of "this is off the record." That's not a switch you can flip after you say something imprudent, AP.
Just finished watching the Trekzone 2nd part. Gosh that was enjoyable. I found both Mr. Bawden and Carlos really engaging as they talked of these issues from their perspectives. I came away from the viewing impressed with Carlos' clearly supported points and inquiries with totally non-adversarial presentation - and with Mr. Bawden giving the appearance that he was not only listening, but actually 'hearing' Carlos' presented concerns. Mirroring many of them and the challenges he's having getting them addressed.
All the way from just trying to subdue this 'we're making the world a better place and it's gonna be Great!' rhetoric and its flip side with its uninhibited unadulterated antagonist verbalization which has become the face of the production to anyone and everyone who is not in its cloud of bliss - down to the reality that there are identifiable places in this production as a film that absolutely 'must' now be rethought, walked back, retooled to get it back back on any kind of track to have even a modicum of success for itself - and, as Mr. Bawden said, for the people who have contributed (<--me) to their goal of making this damn fan film.
Sorry. A moment of frustration.
I loved that I saw Carlos unknowingly speaking for me about the repercussions for the entire non-licensed love of Trek community. That it has all moved way past this singular production now. The fall-out is becoming far reaching. I mean when I read the G & T blog that unofficial 'official' calls were now going out I broke down in tears and anger. Carlos, you were my voice. And quite literally more tears are rolling down my face as I'm typing this. I am so discouraged and unhappy about this *bleee-eeeeee-eeeeep*.
Sorry. An unexpected moment of very pent up frustration I guess.
Anyway, I guess my takeaway from Part 2 is that I felt I was watching two adults who are by necessity sitting in two extremely different vantage points in this matter, having a very necessary discussion. One that needs to continue. I very much enjoyed it. Mr. Bawden's vantage has so long been shrouded from my view and I very much needed to know what the heck has been going on over there. Thank you Mr. Bawden.
Then there were the entertaining segments, totally amusing, as the video would cut away from the adults talking, back to the petulant child once again. And though the entertainment value of it was, well amusing, I found myself always glad when the camera went back to the adults' conversation.
A big big shout out with Much Thanks to Matt at Trekzone for facilitating this!
All the way from just trying to subdue this 'we're making the world a better place and it's gonna be Great!' rhetoric and its flip side with its uninhibited unadulterated antagonist verbalization which has become the face of the production to anyone and everyone who is not in its cloud of bliss - down to the reality that there are identifiable places in this production as a film that absolutely 'must' now be rethought, walked back, retooled to get it back back on any kind of track to have even a modicum of success for itself - and, as Mr. Bawden said, for the people who have contributed (<--me) to their goal of making this damn fan film.
Sorry. A moment of frustration.
I loved that I saw Carlos unknowingly speaking for me about the repercussions for the entire non-licensed love of Trek community. That it has all moved way past this singular production now. The fall-out is becoming far reaching. I mean when I read the G & T blog that unofficial 'official' calls were now going out I broke down in tears and anger. Carlos, you were my voice. And quite literally more tears are rolling down my face as I'm typing this. I am so discouraged and unhappy about this *bleee-eeeeee-eeeeep*.
Sorry. An unexpected moment of very pent up frustration I guess.
Anyway, I guess my takeaway from Part 2 is that I felt I was watching two adults who are by necessity sitting in two extremely different vantage points in this matter, having a very necessary discussion. One that needs to continue. I very much enjoyed it. Mr. Bawden's vantage has so long been shrouded from my view and I very much needed to know what the heck has been going on over there. Thank you Mr. Bawden.
Then there were the entertaining segments, totally amusing, as the video would cut away from the adults talking, back to the petulant child once again. And though the entertainment value of it was, well amusing, I found myself always glad when the camera went back to the adults' conversation.
A big big shout out with Much Thanks to Matt at Trekzone for facilitating this!
Last edited:
Oh, hey. Didn't see you there.
Thanks so much for hosting this. I mean it. It was terrific! Thank you.
Hey Matt. Thanks for your efforts on this, as it was absolutely fascinating. The two parts, as @ThankYouGeneR alluded to, could not be starker in their contrast. After Part 1, was there any attempt to press the "this is off the record" demand? I assume Mike realized that was unreasonable and let the matter drop, especially since you gave him the opportunity to do damage control.
Moving on to unrelated commentary: I believe Mike when he says he's asked the same questions and not received answers. But how insane is that? Mike asks his client direct questions and Alec just... what... changes the subject? How 'bout them Dodgers?
Didn't watch the whole thing. But, I suspect if Mike wasn't working for Peters, Peters would label him a hater. So many questions!
I'll give Axanar this: Mr. Mike Bowden is worth whatever they're paying him, and he's clearly good at PR. But as far as the situation goes; there's really no good way one can spin a client who refuses to even entertain reasonable questions regarding the situation; and his attitude of: "If you're not 100% behind me and EVERYTHING I decide - you're a 'Hater'..." <--- And that's been Alec Peters stance on ANYTHING he's been in charge/control of in fandom over the years from what I've read of his past and present endeavors.
IMO - If Leob&Leob get to go to Trial with this and Alec Peters is put on the stand - Axanar Productions is finished, and it'll be Mr. Peters own testimony that most likely ends whatever chance W&S has of getting any kind of a 'more reasonable' settlement (in terms of damages) from a Jury. But, we'll see how it all plays out over the next few moths,
Hi mate, Mike had requested the opportunity to respond to Alec's comments and that's why it was split in two parts. There was no effort on Mike's part to pull comments that Alec made 'off the record' however as far as I'm concerned, if an interviewee says that when he doesn't like the question everything is fair game. Alec had every opportunity to end the Skype call, he did not.
Matthew doesn't need me to back him up on it, but since I was one of a few people he consulted on this particular matter, I am going to back him up.
Without getting too technical, an interview subject cannot simply declare unilaterally that something is off the record, and it's suddenly done. OTR is something that ALL sides must agree to (and 99 percent of the time, it's ethical considerations, not legal). If Matthew had an agreement with Peters that Peters can declare himself off the record, that would be one thing. But no such agreement existed.
It's good to know if you're ever being interviewed by a reporter. It's good to ask what his or her OTR policy is, because it's different for every reporter, and it's actually your responsibility to know what it is. For example, if you asked me, my OTR policy is that you must request OTR BEFORE you say something intended to be OTR. And I must agree to it. If you ask for it afterward, it won't be granted.
Now do reporters follow their own rules so strictly? No. It depends on the source. So say I am talking to a regular source, like say I'm talking to Carlos Pedraza in an interview, and he says something silly, and then says, "Oh, that's off the record," I would most likely agree. Because I want to keep Carlos as a good interview source, what he said is probably not usable anyway, and there's nothing wrong with giving leeway.
If Matthew had responded "OK, we're off the record" or something to that effect, then ethically, he would be bound to keep that part OTR. But that didn't happen. Matthew said nothing. Peters assumed he was OTR, but he wasn't (and while it might be polite for Matthew to remind him that he's not OTR, he's under no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to do that).
When Peters calls Bawden, he repeats the claim that they are OTR. Bawden is a trained and experienced PR flak. The very next words out of his mouth should have been, "Matthew agreed to that?" or even asking Matthew directly, "Are we off the record?" Bawden knew he was on speaker phone, and even interacted with Matthew, who he knew was a journalist in the middle of an active interview, even if Peters claimed OTR, because Bawden did not verify that, as he should.
Peters could've reinforced his proclaimed OTR by killing his microphone, or even temporarily ending the call. It's like when I worked in radio — treat every microphone like a live microphone. If you say something in earshot of a reporter, expect it to be usable by that reporter.
Whether Matthew granted OTR, even retroactively, is completely up to him. But the advice he received from me and others he consulted was that Matthew was under absolutely no ethical obligation to grant OTR.
Even his deposition may seal his fate.
Enjoyed the second half of the interview - great work there @carlosp . Given Alec's temperament and everything that's been said/done, I'm not sure there's much, if anything Mr. Bowden can do to mitigate things, though I do respect him for attempting to do so. Also, from what I've heard from him, there's a part of me that wonders if things will ever get to a point where he will grow tired of being stonewalled or fed random quips from Alec & his acolytes and just walk away *(he seems to imply that cooler heads might start to prevail though........)
Alec is a walking, talking nuke and I don't think he has the capacity to see the larger picture here for whatever reason, deliberate or otherwise. If he did, if he was able to come back down to earth, get on the same wavelength as his PR man and start tackling some of these issues---walking back what needs to, unblocking people on social media and then just stepping back and shutting his mouth (like Terry and even RMB seems to have done as of late), you would see things change a bit and given time, a lot of the vitriol die down.
I don't think it will though. Enough has already been done/said, it's too far along in the process and like I said, Alec's temperament is just off the charts. If he's deposed, or gets up on that stand, I'd bet real money he'll continue the way he is and seal his own fate.
Last edited:
He believes his own hype. Given his level of hype, that's a bit frightening.
Exactly - and the crux of it is, it's not going to get him anywhere. I could definitely see him and Bowden having a similar conversation to Picard/Guinan in "Yesterday's Enterprise" ("Who is to say this history is less proper than the other...?")
I've not read much of what the PR guy says but from what I have it appears a pretty thankless task. And, with that in mind, I wonder why he's doing it? It must be a paying position (with donors money, natch) because I don't see 'for the love of Star Trek' really being enough of a reason to a) constantly take flak from a lot of people online and b) constantly have to mop up after AP has launched another foot-in-mouth nuke.
- Status