Thanks for taking the time to comment and to clarify for us, James.
Our Star Trek: The 50 Year Mission
- Thread starter BoredShipCapt'n
- Start date
Thanks for taking the time to comment and to clarify for us, James.
Nice bit of distortive editing. The whole quote is this, with explanations in []:
"I saw it [the documentary which is the subject of this thread] as a promotional video supporting Star Trek Continues, and as such it qualifies under my very broad definition of a 'review' of Star Trek Continues. I have many links to discussions about fan films and fan filmmakers by third parties, hence the "Reviewed" part of the title of my website, "Star Trek Reviewed."
If you examine the page linked, you will find dozens of links to discussions and films by others about both specific STC films and STC generally. [including the documentary which is the subject of this thread.]
I considered leaving it out altogether on the possibility it was a paid advertisement for STC, which often behaves like a commercial enterprise rather than a not-for-profit fan film group. [Note that it was NOT left out, which clearly implies that I concluded it was not a paid commercial. That's inherent in this post if you don't take one sentence out of context.]
If the [documentary] filmmakers truly intended this to be a tribute to TOS rather than STC, it is my opinion that they failed. I saw the film as a tribute to STC, implying that STC is the true continuation of TOS, in contrast to other Pro Trek or other Fan Trek.
You may protest that my evaluation [of the documentary] is unfair. My evaluation may indeed be unfair. Your protest will not be the first one I ever get, and probably not the last."
This started because I added the documentary as a rave review to my STC page, and somebody didn't understand that reviews are written by people who AREN'T part of the production, so I included it because it's not by STC. The sentence you chose to distort is about the fact that I don't generally include trailers, teasers, or commercials, but this WASN'T by STC, so it belonged there. Note I used the word 'behave.' I did not use your word, 'operated.' The use of the word 'behave' with regard to STC rather than STC's people was not ideal. However, to create your distortion you had to both change the word and take the sentence out of context.
The word "operated" is your word, not mine. You inserted a word that wasn't there, then objected to your word.
Most of the STC crowd is made up of entertainment professionals. Guess what? They often behave like entertainment professionals. This is particularly true when they are promoting STC. I feel like I am listening to a commercial promotion. Similarly, Doctors behave like doctors, even when they are not operating in medical situations, lawyers behave like lawyers, even when they aren't operating on legal matters. Behavior isn't the same as operating.
I misunderstood a post which discussed Vic's age when something happened to him or when he did something. You complained to him about me, and he contacted me. In our discussion, he stated that he is 52 years old. That makes my original dating of Vic's Vintage Voyages (VVV) correct. It would have been interesting if he were older because that would make VVV the first significant Star Trek fan films ever made, truly groundbreaking and historic. I apologize for misreading that post, and reporting that misreading about Vic's age here.
Last edited:
Distortion? No. You're simply splitting hairs. Whether you accuse STC of _operating_ as a "commercial enterprise," or _behaving_ as a "commercial enterprise," the point still stands: we do not. Period.
I agree that we are well-organized and that our content looks quite professional -- primarily because, as you pointed out, it's created mainly by cast and crew who are Hollywood industry professionals in their "day job" careers.
But you didn't say anything about how professional our content looks, nor about the manner in which our professionals conduct themselves in promotional interviews. You simply and directly stated that STAR TREK CONTINUES "often behaves like a commercial enterprise rather than a not-for-profit," which is essentially an allegation of criminal behavior. 501(c)(3)s may not engage in commercial enterprises, nor can we engage in any profit-making activity involving Star Trek trademarks and copyrights. We have attorneys and accountants on our team ensuring we do everything by-the-book and legally, and that we absolutely never "behave" as if we are a commercial enterprise.
As a lawyer yourself, you certainly know how inappropriate it is to insinuate (directly or indirectly) that others are "behaving" illegally when they aren't.
I agree that we are well-organized and that our content looks quite professional -- primarily because, as you pointed out, it's created mainly by cast and crew who are Hollywood industry professionals in their "day job" careers.
But you didn't say anything about how professional our content looks, nor about the manner in which our professionals conduct themselves in promotional interviews. You simply and directly stated that STAR TREK CONTINUES "often behaves like a commercial enterprise rather than a not-for-profit," which is essentially an allegation of criminal behavior. 501(c)(3)s may not engage in commercial enterprises, nor can we engage in any profit-making activity involving Star Trek trademarks and copyrights. We have attorneys and accountants on our team ensuring we do everything by-the-book and legally, and that we absolutely never "behave" as if we are a commercial enterprise.
As a lawyer yourself, you certainly know how inappropriate it is to insinuate (directly or indirectly) that others are "behaving" illegally when they aren't.
Last edited:
Actually, you didn't list it as a "rave review." Instead of being grouped with the "Reviews," it comes immediately after this entry:
...and the text reads:
The use of "they" in this context, with no other antecedent, strongly implies that the film was posted by STC.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P8IYKxpqG0[/yt]
As we wander down this rat hole, if I remember correctly, Clinton was asked if there is a relationship between him and Monica Lewinsky. Since by the time of this deposition, Clinton had already broken off his "relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky, he was unclear how to answer if there is still a relationship with her. There certainly was a relationship but since it had been broken off, does he still have one? "Is there a relationship between you an Ms. Lewinsky?" Well, like he says: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Last edited:
The point being ... we are getting hung up on semantics.
I think it's fair to say that while James Kerwin and the STC people are certainly doing their due diligence to make sure they tamp down any misrepresentation of their efforts - and particularly by someone in the world of fan films such as Barb - it's also pretty clear that it's just a minor miscommunication and one that's now been resolved, yes?
I think it's fair to say that while James Kerwin and the STC people are certainly doing their due diligence to make sure they tamp down any misrepresentation of their efforts - and particularly by someone in the world of fan films such as Barb - it's also pretty clear that it's just a minor miscommunication and one that's now been resolved, yes?
Yes.
Hi loghaD my name is Chris, I directed "Our Star Trek: The Fifty Year Mission" Firstly Id like to thank you for backing the project. Secondly I hear your critique. Thirdly I appreciate that youre able to see the projects its merits in its final state. With that aside I would be happy to have a phone call with you to fill you in on the production and why the movie evolved into its current form. Please email me if your interested ncc1500@yahoo.com
I just want to make it clear that I did enjoy it, and watched it all the way through. I don't think there's anything wrong with focusing on STC, though I'd like to see other fan films covered in detail as well in a comprehensive study.
Still, I want to thank everyone involved.
Still, I want to thank everyone involved.
Similar threads
