Embarassment or the risk of Criminal Charges??
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Embarassment or the risk of Criminal Charges??
I think it might have been a 'borrow from Peter to pay Paul' with the studio. He counted on the new studio to be producing revenue which he could then use for the film, taking as long as he wanted to finish it.
Why else make the fitting out of the studio be a number one priority when he could have rented existing facilities at a fraction of the cost to produce Axanar. By using Axanar to produce funding for a new studio he could not afford otherwise he was creating a facility which would continue to generate income for him to use on what ever he wished. He created enough SFX demos and partial sets to demonstrate that work on the film was ongoing which bought time.
At the point Alec Peters started seeing all that Pledge money, the Axanar film WAS NO LONGER his top priority - Starting a new business where he rented the Studio out (for Profit) became the priority (why do you think he outfitted his offices and Green Room spaces first?) - and he figured he could BOTH rent out the Studio AND still maintain the Kickstarter/Indegogo/Donor Store campaigns to even more funds to 'produce' Axanar at some point.
So I as a donor (multiple time) have been given this assurance and commitment:
Thumbs up! Good.
And now I have the Public Domain Legal Document that gives me this:
Thumbs up! Good.
But now there's also this:
But the commitment has been made.... "This is our commitment to you" to show "exactly where the money is going."
So, for this posting I'm going to take you at your word without any argument on any of it:
Money IN: $1,428,902.43
Money OUT: $1,433,003.67
Please, Sir, if you will look back through all of my postings you will see I have been respectful to you and all those involved in the production as well as all the supporter/advocates of the production, and quoting only your words that I could verify said by you in all instances, and I am asking you... exactly where did the money go?
Thumbs up! Good.
And now I have the Public Domain Legal Document that gives me this:
Thumbs up! Good.
But now there's also this:
But the commitment has been made.... "This is our commitment to you" to show "exactly where the money is going."
So, for this posting I'm going to take you at your word without any argument on any of it:
Money IN: $1,428,902.43
Money OUT: $1,433,003.67
Please, Sir, if you will look back through all of my postings you will see I have been respectful to you and all those involved in the production as well as all the supporter/advocates of the production, and quoting only your words that I could verify said by you in all instances, and I am asking you... exactly where did the money go?
Last edited:
...Batman! Cue the spinning 1966 Batman logo!
Apologises if this is a silly question, it's been a long day. If that came to pass, do they defend themselves?
Beginning to wonder if there's a dungeon under the studio.
They just told you. OUT.
Last edited:
Not quite as transparent as he promised. Obviously it's OUT and W&S think it would be embarrassing for you to know. Hence its redacted.So I as a donor (multiple time) have been given this assurance and commitment:
Thumbs up! Good.
And now I have the Public Domain Legal Document that gives me this:
Thumbs up! Good.
But now there's also this:
But the commitment has been made.... "This is our commitment to you" to show "exactly where the money is going."
So, for this posting I'm going to take you at your word without any argument on any of it:
Money IN: $1,428,902.43
Money OUT: $1,433,003.67
Please, Sir, if you will look back through all of my postings you will see I have been respectful to you and all those involved in the production as well as all the supporter/advocates of the production, and quoting only your words that I could verify said by you in all instances, and I am asking you... exactly where did the money go?
They would hire outside counsel.
I can actually see that happening.
He was so popular, and things were going so well, that he could have just gone True Believer on his faithful donors. "Oh, well, I'll be making $1MM per month by this time next year, so it won't matter if I spend this $100K now..."
And that could even be an honest (if ill-advised) thing, with no ill intent.
Yeah, not buying it.
But if it's true, then I've got this bridge I should offer him...
He's got one he could offer you...
Of course, it's not complete...
Of course, it's not complete...
But it's a professional fan bridge! It may look like the Golden Gate, but it's transformative!
@Potemkin, could you make a documentary about your productions yourself? Or for it to be a documentary do you have to have someone else make it... because it's about your production.
"Documentary filmmaking can be used as a form of journalism, advocacy, or personal expression." ---- wikipedia
EDIT: Just found the answer. Which is yes, of course, anyone could make a documentary about their own production.
The reason I was asking about making one's own documentary was this from the Official Podcast #41:
Which had me asking 'why would that be silly? is this something that isn't done or isn't allowed or something?'
But I see that it 'is' done. It 'is' allowed. And it 'isn't' silly.
I wonder why he would say that?
Last edited:
@ThankYouGeneR Funny you should mention that... We didn't shoot it ourselves, but one may be showing up in a month or two. I haven't seen it, and I'm sure I will be pompous and silly, but we had fun the three or four days they were here. And they watched us film both "Aftermath" (which is available on line)
and "The Archive" (which is in post-production -- VFX and music -- right now).
and "The Archive" (which is in post-production -- VFX and music -- right now).
Cool. I look forward to seeing it!
Hey, hey, hey! This isn't a thread about guys and gals delivering what they promise and producing fan films for people around the world to enjoy! Take that somewhere else
I'm playing with another thought at the moment regarding the missing money. I've already posted it "elsewhere" but I want to share it here either (wording slightly changed):
What if those simpletons (Axaminions) are already some kind of shareholders? I'd imagine they've been promised some 1-2 % (or more?). If the lawsuit went well they'd get their share, if everything goes down they'd lose nothing. Remember the Terry situation!
So they're out to fight the good fight for Alec - probably in light of promises of studio's stocks... who knows, why they are so persistent, that everything Alec says and does must be pure Gold instead of the pile of BS that comes out of his keyboard and mouth.
I don't want to believe they are just THAT stupid... but who knows?
We know that there are not 12.000 or more donors who still have a dog in this fight. Just some "die hard" 5-20 people, like Jonathan Lane, Charles Britto, Reece Watkins... Why would they follow so blindly their leader?
2 possibilities: a) Either they are really so dumb - or b) they have been promised something (or even have gotten something) that is part of Industry Studios (or the money trail)....
What if those simpletons (Axaminions) are already some kind of shareholders? I'd imagine they've been promised some 1-2 % (or more?). If the lawsuit went well they'd get their share, if everything goes down they'd lose nothing. Remember the Terry situation!
So they're out to fight the good fight for Alec - probably in light of promises of studio's stocks... who knows, why they are so persistent, that everything Alec says and does must be pure Gold instead of the pile of BS that comes out of his keyboard and mouth.
I don't want to believe they are just THAT stupid... but who knows?
We know that there are not 12.000 or more donors who still have a dog in this fight. Just some "die hard" 5-20 people, like Jonathan Lane, Charles Britto, Reece Watkins... Why would they follow so blindly their leader?
2 possibilities: a) Either they are really so dumb - or b) they have been promised something (or even have gotten something) that is part of Industry Studios (or the money trail)....
If they have a stake in the company then, heh, their shares are about to go in the tank. And they might want to, oh, I dunno, have an accountant make sure the %s line up.
PS Yet another blog post on this stuff:
Defense Objection to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial S/J
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-defense-objection-plaintiffs-motion/
3 more to come (and it looks like, oops, I never defined 'interlocutory appeal' in the glossary, so I'll go fix that now).
Thank you for your kind support.
PS Yet another blog post on this stuff:
Defense Objection to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial S/J
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-defense-objection-plaintiffs-motion/
3 more to come (and it looks like, oops, I never defined 'interlocutory appeal' in the glossary, so I'll go fix that now).
Thank you for your kind support.
Think there's a combination of each.........Some I could see investing........Others like Kimber........not so much.
It is an interesting conundrum isn't it. Your logic getting to your speculated conclusions is, well, logical to me. It's something I have often pondered myself. Actually continue to. I can say from experience the one die hard person I know in real life is not stupid and isn't close enough to the defendant to have been offered any part of the pie in one form or another. My friend seems to be a believer. I have one online acquaintance who is certainly not wavering at all in either interpreting everything the opposite of my interpretation or in majorly active support of the production and defendant. In no stretch of the imagination or by any definition of the word is that acquaintance stupid. And everything the defendant speaks to regarding this whole thing seems perfectly logical and Reasonable to that acquaintance too. There could possibly be some pie involved there but I will strongly doubt it would the kind I think you are speaking to. Another online acquaintance I have thinks the defendant is right and admirable. The man. And that person is also not stupid in any way nor a 'believer' in the sense that I use it, or close enough to the pie to get any. We are also diametric opposites on the three newest movies and their worth or lack thereof in trek. I also have another online acquaintance, not stupid, not a believer, no pie, whose polite to me take on this is that I'm really offbase.
But at this time you and I are riding on the same track about those real close to the defendant possibly having a finger in the pie as incentive. To the others who are close but not that close, the invitation all by itself to sit at the table and be part of the party would be appealing enough. And there are still the believers, whom I advocate for as not being stupid, who have an 'emotional' stake in this. For.... reasons. Facts will always be puny when faced down by belief.
"We know that there are not 12.000 or more donors who still have a dog in this fight."
Reason, logic, & personal experience tell me the same thing.
" Just some "die hard" 5-20 people,"
I'll agree that maybe 5-20 people are still being very vocal at this point. Some may be getting incentives, others belief or maybe & incentives. But I'll bet heavily that they are to a person - not stupid. I'll also lay heavy odds at this time that there are still thousands out and around who still see this whole thing at face value and still support the production. And I bet my home that they are not stupid.
And most are not believers. They just have..... reasons.Anyway, that seems logical to me.
Last edited:
- Status