P2/James Cawley posts defensive statement

[Phantom]

https://www.facebook.com/james.cawley.526/posts/10204725125757933

I wasn't aware of any current issues between productions.

 

[Akira8]

I believe said issue is heavily documented and that nothing productive could arise from a discussion on the topic. Some things are best left in the past.

 

[Maurice]

Apparently there's an article which they feel does not give credit where credit is due.

 

[Karzak]

Cawley seems to be reacting badly to the recent Wall Street Journal article "When the Audience Makes the Cameras Roll" on fan films.

Cawley's first comment:

James Cawley said:
No matter what lies are spread in the press and among fandom, To you all I say, We here at New Voyages were the first to recast these characters, The first to bring back TOS, and work with it's guest stars, We were here 13 years before the rest and I swear, we will be here 13 years after them.

Reading the article in question, I'm not sure what constitutes "lies are spread in the press" here.

Cawley later made a comment in that status thread:

James Cawley said:
It's not a competition and I really do not care about that aspect of things. I do care about our contribution to fandom and I am tired of it trying to be ignored and rewritten just because someone else claims otherwise. people need to do their research before writing an article.

...and this seems to be the bit of the article that is getting his goat:

The web series comes frighteningly close to replicating the original series, in the sets, make-up and hairstyles, costumes and music. (Andy Farber, a frequent member of the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, composed the latest two episodes, scoring for a 40-piece orchestra.) The art direction precisely captures the Day-Glo visuals of early color TV. Most remarkable is Mr. Mignogna; no actor playing, for instance, James Bond has imitated Sean Connery outright, but Mr. Mignogna comes so scarily close to the dynamic, staccato energy of William Shatner that we keep forgetting we’re looking at another actor. The show has been primarily funded through two “Kirkstarter” campaigns that have raised a total of $250,000 for the five 50-minute episodes produced so far. Compare that with the $190,000 budget (roughly $1.4 million in today’s dollars) for a single episode in 1966, or the $1.7 million that Paramount spent on episodes of the most recent Trek show, “Enterprise,” a dozen years ago.

None of which, really suggests in any way that Continues came first, nor does it preclude the trailblazing status in the fan film world New Voyages enjoys. Hopefully Cawley is just feeling ignored because the article mentions in no way any other of the various Trek-fan films.

And, it's worth noting the fan films that pre-date New Voyages, -- Hidden Frontier and Exeter -- do not get any mention either.

So, I'm not really sure what other reason Cawley could have for being so irate.It is somewhat difficult to not read this as possibly being that Cawley is behaving this indignantly because of the specific, complimentary description of Vic Mignogna's performance as Kirk, but I'd hope that Cawley isn't that insecure or vindictive.

I mean, Cawley blames it on a lack of fact-checking/needing more research, and to be fair, there is a grossly lamentable lack of fact-checking in online journalism these days but this isn't some dopey fan blogger at Blastr pretending to be a journalist. This is the Wall Street Journal. I think they've probably got a good idea there about what constitutes legit journalism.

 

[GSchnitzer]

Apparently there's an article which they feel does not give credit where credit is due.

Wall Street Journal article about fan films is here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-audience-makes-the-cameras-roll-1441657364

It's hard to know if we should feel slighted. And some on our team are sour grapes when STC gets any positive publicity.

 

[Bixby]

... there is a grossly lamentable lack of fact-checking in online journalism these days but this isn't some dopey fan blogger at Blastr pretending to be a journalist. This is the Wall Street Journal. I think they've probably got a good idea there about what constitutes legit journalism.

The article about fan films aside, don't give modern reporting THAT much credit, Karzak. Fact-checking across the board is nowhere near the priority it used to be a few décades ago. I've been a small part of at least two dozen stories featured in various publications over the years and all of them were riddled with errors, falsehoods, or just plain baloney that would have taken one phone call and 15 minutes by the writer to correct.

 

[Harvey]

Also, 2016 will see two major Star Trek releases, Paramount’s official “Star Trek Beyond” and the eagerly anticipated “Axanar,” a highly ambitious fan feature (budgeted at half a million dollars) that has the potential to create an entirely new Trek sub-franchise.

Snarky comments I might make about these two things being mentioned in the same breath aside, Axanar's budget is four times the figure quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

 

[Karzak]

... there is a grossly lamentable lack of fact-checking in online journalism these days but this isn't some dopey fan blogger at Blastr pretending to be a journalist. This is the Wall Street Journal. I think they've probably got a good idea there about what constitutes legit journalism.

The article about fan films aside, don't give modern reporting THAT much credit, Karzak. Fact-checking across the board is nowhere near the priority it used to be a few décades ago. I've been a small part of at least two dozen stories featured in various publications over the years and all of them were riddled with errors, falsehoods, or just plain baloney that would have taken one phone call and 15 minutes by the writer to correct.

A fair point, I'll admit.

That being said, I still don't see what lies were spread to the press in this article. One more cynical than I might consider the inaccurate reporting of Axanar's budget as a "lie," I'd still say that's a bit of a stretch.

 

[Phantom]

Thanks for the info, guys!

 

[Warped9]

The article doesn't state that STC started the current Trek fan film movement. But in context I could see where P2/NV could feel slighted by such an omission.

The statement asserting STC as the current flagship of Trek fan films is obviously an opinion--everybody does have one. I admit it can be given a measure of weight by some simply by the fact of being in print of a professional publication. And while I have my own preferences I can see how some might feel slighted by that.

That being said if P2/NV has any bones to pick over this article it should be with the journalist who wrote the piece rather than with the folks at STC.

I do know that the article was mentioned on STC's FB page with a link to the piece. I don't think one can really fault them for sharing whatever positive press they get given they are trying to keep the interest in their series going.

And one can't miss that STC has been getting mentioned in mainstream media. As positive as it is I can see where that could weigh on some people's minds.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

“Star Trek,” particularly the original series, has always been the galactic epicenter of fan fiction and films. The flagship of the fan film fleet is easily “Star Trek Continues,” the brainchild of Vic Mignogna, who has been a dominant figure in producing, writing and occasionally directing the series (the fifth episode drops, as they say, at the end of this month), and who also stars as Captain Kirk.

I think that the boldfaced is a problematic statement, for the inappropriate implications that go with framing it in terms of there being a "flagship," and the idea suggested by use of the word "easily" isn't supported. But it's filed as an opinion piece, so....

 

[Warped9]

“Star Trek,” particularly the original series, has always been the galactic epicenter of fan fiction and films. The flagship of the fan film fleet is easily “Star Trek Continues,” the brainchild of Vic Mignogna, who has been a dominant figure in producing, writing and occasionally directing the series (the fifth episode drops, as they say, at the end of this month), and who also stars as Captain Kirk.

I think that the boldfaced is a problematic statement, for the inappropriate implications that go with framing it in terms of there being a "flagship," and the idea suggested by use of the word "easily" isn't supported. But it's filed as an opinion piece, so....

He is asserting his opinion which is given a measure of weight because of the publication in which it appears. But it's easy to see how that might rankle some at P2/NV.

But I think it needs to be said that longevity in of itself--while admirable--doesn't automatically and by default crown you as king of the hill. You have to accept that somewhere along the line someone else might come along and steal some of your thunder.

I have said it before so please excuse me repeating it, but the overall goal and execution of P2/NV and STC are somewhat different. While both aim (in general terms) to pick up where TOS left off they have each respectively taken different approaches. Both productions have introduced more contemporary elements in some measure or other, but STC has hewed far more closely to the overall feel of TOS. It could very well be this approach that is getting them the attention and recognition they've been getting. While more avid fans can easily pick out the things we likely wouldn't have seen on TOS overall the production feels very close to the original series even while using an entirely different cast. And to some more casual fans the differences might not really register.

 

[Phantom]

Yeah, I can see how Cawley would get his shorts in a knot over not being acknowledged as the longest-running fanfilm project still in operation (not the oldest, as others have noted, with Hidden Frontier and a couple of others holding those honors).

(Parenthetical note: the material from HF isn't the best in terms of production values, but I have to admit I'm getting a kick out of it, esp Odyssey and Federation One.)

 

[Barbreader]

Anyone who expects truth from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is in for a disappointment. I left a comment. It was only two days ago, after five or six other comments had been up for a day or two. They have falsely labeled the older comments as newer than mine. I contradicted the article on a number of points,

1) The franchise that produces the largest number of fan projects is Star Wars, not Star Trek. (sorry, guys, but that's my understanding)
2) I corrected Axanar's budget figure
3) I mentioned James Cawley and Starfleet Starfleet Studios. I questioned them calling Continues a 'flagship' which implies leadership of a community. I am not aware of nearly as many fan film groups that have been helped or inspired by Continues as I am of fan film groups helped or inspired by New Voyages, Starfleet Studios, and I should have mentioned Hidden Frontier, but I was just dashing it off and I didn't. On the other hand Hidden Frontier is no longer producing films (and only rarely producing audio) so I'm not sure I was wrong to leave it out.

What is interesting to me is that they falsely dated my comment to put it at the bottom of the page. They really don't like being corrected.

Could have been worse. At least they didn't switch around what I said. I got interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on a non-Trek matter a few years ago and when I refused to say what they wanted me to (that deregulation was the solution to a problem,) they claimed that every expert they spoke to agreed that deregulation was the solution, but didn't give any names. I called a few other known experts in the field and all had been interviewed and all agreed deregulation would be a disaster. Didn't stop the WSJ from saying the opposite.

 

[dswynne1]

SNIP!

Could have been worse. At least they didn't switch around what I said. I got interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on a non-Trek matter a few years ago and when I refused to say what they wanted me to (that deregulation was the solution to a problem,) they claimed that every expert they spoke to agreed that deregulation was the solution, but didn't give any names. I called a few other known experts in the field and all had been interviewed and all agreed deregulation would be a disaster. Didn't stop the WSJ from saying the opposite.

Deregulation would lower the cost of doing business, that's for sure. At the very least, if state or Federal agencies want to regulate a business or sector, then it should the state and Federal agency that should pick up the tab, either by direct payments/subsidies or tax incentives. It's only fair, you know.

 

[Barbreader]

SNIP!

Could have been worse. At least they didn't switch around what I said. I got interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on a non-Trek matter a few years ago and when I refused to say what they wanted me to (that deregulation was the solution to a problem,) they claimed that every expert they spoke to agreed that deregulation was the solution, but didn't give any names. I called a few other known experts in the field and all had been interviewed and all agreed deregulation would be a disaster. Didn't stop the WSJ from saying the opposite.

Deregulation would lower the cost of doing business, that's for sure. At the very least, if state or Federal agencies want to regulate a business or sector, then it should the state and Federal agency that should pick up the tab, either by direct payments/subsidies or tax incentives. It's only fair, you know.

So, it's your opinion that a product selling for under $2 that kills people should not be regulated. (This was the situation at hand.) A business should be able to produce a deadly product and hold up the taxpayers for making the product safe because in the imaginary free market there is perfect information and people know the consequences of buying an item for under $2 and always research it carefully.

Toxins in baby formula for everyone! And no labeling either! That's regulation! Regulation bad! Death good!

No, it's not only not fair to deregulate, its often stupid. It's not fair that a person who produces a deadly product should be able to hold up the taxpayers or be permitted to continue without adjustment. And when the product is not differentiated, (such as farm products) you can't necessarily prove who actually produced it, so you can't sue the manufacturer. And yes, incorporation limits liability so that the owner can make a profit and dissolve the corporate entity and never pay. Furthermore, even if you CAN trace a product to a particular farm or manufacterer, not everyone harmed can prove cause and even those that can cannot necessary get a lawyer. And by the time all that happens, the Statute of Limitations has often passed.

It is fair to consumers and it makes sense for a society to regulate requirements that a product be safe, and incorporate safety into it as part of the price of the product. The advantage of regulations is that all competitive products face the same rules. If the product is only safe for $10 all manufacturers face the same issue.

And no, the market doesn't make things safe. Never has, never will. Which is why every expert they interviewed agreed that the problem would not be solved by deregulation.

 

[Phantom]

Deregulation would lower the cost of doing business, that's for sure. At the very least, if state or Federal agencies want to regulate a business or sector, then it should the state and Federal agency that should pick up the tab, either by direct payments/subsidies or tax incentives. It's only fair, you know.

No.

Ultimately you can never reduce the cost of anything. It costs what it costs. The only thing you can change is who pays that cost, and in what form that payment is extracted.

The ultimate goal of every business is to maximize the amount of it's costs that the workers and consumers pay in it's stead and to minimize the amount of value it is forced to give those workers and consumers. This is the principle of "externalization" at work.

And no, the market doesn't make things safe. Never has, never will. Which is why every expert they interviewed agreed that the problem would not be solved by deregulation.

In fact, the market is designed to make things UNsafe. As unsafe, cheap, and shoddy as it can get away with and to charge as much as it can get away with for those dangerous, cheap, shoddy goods. That is how businesses maximize profits and attract "investors".

 

[Maurice]

Uh, hello, relevance?