• 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!

Has the definition of 'fan film' changed?

Melakon

Admiral
In Memoriam
I'd guess this has been asked a lot. When I see the words 'fan film', I tend to think it's simply a group of amateurs having fun.

But with the Kickstarter campaigns, hiring of professional talent before and behind the cameras, it's starting to sound like these are closer to independent film projects that aren't allowed to be booked in theaters, rather than the nostalgic idea of "Hey kids, let's put on a show!"

When did the nature of fan films start to change? I know it's not limited to Trek, as there must be Star Wars projects and comic book proects doing the same thing based on behind the scenes material associated with films of that genre I've seen.
 
I've asked this question a few times, Melakon. To me when folks start paying the cast and crew, it's no longer a fan film. Project: Potemkin does not pay its cast or crew.
 
I'm not condemning anyone for it, and it does seem a natural evolution of the process.

The types of "fan films" my friends and I made in high shool were shot on old fashion silent 8mm (not Super 8mm) film from Kodak. We did bad spy movies trying to be exciting like James Bond. :lol: We didn't have access to enough people or a way to build sets and props to do sci-fi, and there weren't a lot of prop worthy sci fi toys to use then either.

I'd said this seems a natural development, but we all know the risk going into it that someone might say "Hey, if you don't stop, I'll take my ball and go home."

And I want to emphasize that when I'm using this "natural evolution" phrase, I mean in terms of filmmakers. The people we're honoring, and other fan film categories as well, are a group of professionals who are almost totally responsible for the fan film explosion. It's not just those folks at Star Trek, but people like Spielberg, Lucas, and many others who were playing with film even before college. The fan film may evolve into a way where they are recognized enough that Joe Blow from Kokomo can suddenly get a multi-million dollar contract because he made the greatest fan film in the world.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the term has become quite loaded. However, I disagree with Potemkin_Prod's interpretation.

No matter how good Exeter, Intrepid, Star Trek Continues, Axanar or Phase II or any of the fan films are, to my mind, they are still fan-produced projects simply because they are not the copyright holders of the intellectual property they are producing nor are they doing so with the express intent of said owners.

They're still just a bunch of fans making a movie. And that's great. That's wonderful and special. It takes a lot to achieve something like that and I applaud each group for doing so every time they do for this very reason. How many fan films have we seen announced over the years that wither away into the ether?

One of my personal frustrations with the Phase II productions has been the consistent lack of original content produced by the Cawley Entertainment Group. They certainly have the resources. Phase II is clearly their bread and butter but their forays into the now all but disowned Buck Rogers Begins and the supposedly upcoming Wild Wild West fan films betray a real lack of desire to venture into their own original productions while at the same time insisting (and at times demanding) that they be taken seriously as a "professional" production.

Contrast this with some of the personnel from Exeter, who went on to produce "Polaris," an original film. Or Intrepid, whose production team is likewise branching out to produce original content with Wicked Things, an intended original series. Even Rob Caves tried to break away from his Hidden Frontier empire and create something new and original with the short-lived Frontier Guard.

Obviously, neither way is right or wrong, nor more "right" than the other, but it's hard not to look at these two disparate groups and see one basically trading sandboxes in order to continue to play dressup while the others strive to create something new and original. And all my criticisms of Phase II aside, I think the biggest issue for me is that they so often are like Icarus, reaching for the sun and almost getting there before something comes along and melts their wings. They have the capability to do something really special. We've seen it already with what is easily their finest offering, "World Enough And Time," but they just don't seem to want to make that push forward.

In short: in my own opinion anything with the name Star Trek on it that wasn't commissioned and produced by CBS or Paramount is still a fan film. You can land celebrity guest stars, you can get pros to write and produce your shows, but in the end, they're all just vanity projects, not tied to the actual literary, televised, or official canon of the intellectual property.

Note: this certainly does not preclude, however, that some of these films are still superb hours of entertainment. Star Trek Continues' "Lolani" was especially well done; "World Enough and Time" is a classic, and Exeter's "The Tressaurian Intersection" I think is the finest example of being it's own film while also being one of the best fan films I've ever seen.
 
I agree, 005, I've seen a lot of impressive work in the fan films here, and also wish these people would give us new sci-fi set in their own conceptualized universes with no Star Trek connection at all. Every person on this BBS probably has a little fictional scifi future of their very own in their head that they play in. Every few months I do little test animations in mine that are not professional quality at all. But it's mine, not someone else's. That's what I want to see the talented people here do, show me YOUR world.
 
Actually, I don't think it's true that many fan filmmakers want to create their own universes. Most enjoy adding to or "fixing" the shows they love. They want to be part of it, play dress-up and BE in that world in some sense.

But, supposing they did, if one of these groups did try to make something original and tried to crowdfund it, would fans throw money at it? Would they if it DIDN'T have name Trek actors or production people behind it? Was the Space Command Kickstarter a rousing success because people wanted to see that show, or was it more because of of the number of fans of Drexler's work and pro talent attached to it, and a great campaign? The unmitigated failure of the Kickstarter for Buck Rogers Begins is an interesting case because I can think of a half dozen reasons it might've stalled, but it proves that just because a group makes well-known fanfilms doesn't automatically mean people are interested in something different, even with fan-service actors aboard.
 
Last edited:
Good point, Maurice. When you go to Kickstarter-type fundraising you are putting yourself to some extent at the wishes of the marketplace. If you self-fund and invite everyone to enjoy your product and they don't like it, well, ce'st la vie. If you're asking people to help you pay for a project, like it or not, you are giving them a say in what gets produced. Even if you're not out to make a profit, the Golden Rule is still going to apply.
 
Once they start making proft, I'd call it an Independent film. They'll never happen (and if it does, not for long), so they are still considered fan films, at least in my eyes.
 
So theoretically, one could make a fan film that hired big name talent in all areas of production, had a budget of 5 million dollars, and it would still be a fan film. I guess it's the amateurs and professionals working on the same common project that confuses me about it.
 
So theoretically, one could make a fan film that hired big name talent in all areas of production, had a budget of 5 million dollars, and it would still be a fan film. I guess it's the amateurs and professionals working on the same common project that confuses me about it.

As long as the budget was just cost and the "organization" behind the project wasn't cutting a profit.
 
Yeah that would make sense. If I were some rich eccentric instead of just an eccentric, that's probably the kind of fan film I'd make too. ;)
 
Once they start making proft, I'd call it an Independent film. They'll never happen (and if it does, not for long), so they are still considered fan films, at least in my eyes.

I think the definition of a "fan film" is a film which takes place in the setting of an established and existing franchise of which the makers are fans.

Since such a work would be utilizing likely copyrighted and trademarked elements of the franchise, it cannot be "pro" in terms of the producers making any money off the resulting film, ergo, it must be a non-profit

The moment such a fan film makes money, it goes from being a fan film to being a commercial project which violates the rights of the actual owners of the property.

Polaris and Space Command are indie films because while it's made by some fanfilm peeps, it's an original piece of work and not set in any previously created setting or continuity. (To paraphrase Dennis, Polaris is to Star Trek what Star Trek is to Forbidden Planet: a variation on a theme.)
 
Last edited:
Yeah that would make sense. If I were some rich eccentric instead of just an eccentric, that's probably the kind of fan film I'd make too. ;)

Oh I would too! I'd love to start one of these.

I can at least dream about it. I'm not foolish enough to jump on the bandwagon without being independently financially sufficient or having talent all around me.

If I ever struck it rich, Hell, I'd donate to CBS if I thought it would get them to put Trek back on the air.
 
Whether it's made in a garage by kids or involves professional actors on expensive sets, as long as it's unauthorized by CBS it's still fan fiction on film, and thus a fan film.
 
Maurice, I'd like your opinion on something related to this topic. What about franchises which came into existence before the idea of 'franchise copyright' was created? I'll point to Sherlock Holmes as an example. At the moment, there are TWO major television series based (somewhat loosely) on Doyle's work. Neither are independent, Sherlock is BBC Elementary is American. I don't remember who makes Elementary, but it shows on CBS.

Unlike Trademark, which in theory can last forever, copyright has a term of years. Franchise copyright has no set established term, but the decisions recently concerning Time Warner/DC/Superman would move in the "Franchise copyright doesn't die, it just fades away" direction. The contrast with the Captain Marvel/Superman decision which established franchise copyright is striking.

In contrast to DC, which has never gone for 60 days without producing a Superman product, comic, TV show or whatever, (hence fully holding any element of Trademark which may exist in franchise copyright) CBS has not produced TOS-style Star Trek in over 45 years. If there is an element of trademark in holding a franchise copyright, that is gone.

It seems likely to me that if CBS decided to shut down all of the TOS-style fan films, and the impossible happened (since I'd rather herd cats than try to get fan filmmakers to work together) and all of the TOS fan filmmakers pooled their resources for a lawyer, CBS would lose.

CBS owns the individual copyrights on each TOS show, but I have to wonder, particularly given it's investment in the re-invention of TOS as JJA Trek, if they own the 'franchise' copyright, or if TOS-style Star Trek, like Sherlock Holmes, is no longer truly owned by anyone. Unless somebody gets a court decision, I don't see how we would ever know. But I request your thoughts on this. (I'm a lawyer and I was President of the Patent, Trademark and Copyright Society of my law school, but have done little practice in that area of law.) I see it only from a legal viewpoint, while you see it from an industry viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer, but from working with legal departments on such things I'll throw my thoughts out there for what little they may be worth. I'll be having dinner with my film/entertainment lawyer friend soon and will ask his thoughts on this whilst liquoring him up. :)

My gut instinct is that all we have to do is look at Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny for precedents. The characters and their "franchises" remain intact long after their original copyrights would have expired, and their Trademarks remain standing. All of this even when many years went by without any "original style" content was created. How long was it between starring vehicles for Mickey, after all?

I'm not sure what "TOS-style" means. But to follow that as a concept, the longest Trek's rights holders went without making a Star Trek show/film was the 10.5 years between TOS and TMP (and if you count TAS, less). And, the specific characters and events from TOS were many times used and referenced in "franchise" movies and shows between the end of the TOS movies and the first JJ film. The look of the sets and costumes might've changed, but the essential elements, including trademarked names and logos (the "flying A" symbol) remain in use throughout. The style changes, superficial trappings change, but the essential elements of the show remain in use.

My gut instinct is that the day that the old post-1947 color Loony Tunes are deemed to have fallen into the public domain is the same day the original Star Trek can be argued to have done the same. In short, what stands for Bugs and Mickey is probably 100% applicable to Trek.

As to Superman, isn't the issue there is what rights the creators and their heirs hold? If so, I don't see how that relates to Trek.
 
Last edited:
The creators of Superman sold their rights, lock, stock, and barrel, with their first comic. They had nothing to do with this issue. As to Loony Toons, I am not familiar with the extent of fan-created literature nor where courts have drawn lines about what is too close and therefore violates copyrights. Nothing would stop CBS from creating Star Trek, so I'm a little confused about your example. I am not aware of who was excluded from using Loony-Toons-like animations. Copyright, Patent, and Trademark aren't about the right to use, but the right to exclude others from using. I guess I just don't follow the decisions protecting Time Warner's Loony Tunes. I know that they raised some issue about Disney's Toontown in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but I thought Warner lost that one. But I confess I just don't follow that Franchise.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. I was addressing your statement "CBS owns the individual copyrights on each TOS show, but I have to wonder, particularly given it's investment in the re-invention of TOS as JJA Trek, if they own the 'franchise' copyright, or if TOS-style Star Trek, like Sherlock Holmes, is no longer truly owned by anyone." And pointing out why I thought CBS could make a fair claim to a "franchise copyright" since, details aside, it's still a going concern.

Roger Rabbit did involve a ton of licensing agreements (down to "screentime parity" for Bugs Bunny to be equal to that of Mickey). I'm not familiar with the "Toontown" issue.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top