• 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!

Star Trek Convention Cancelled DURING Event

Michael, it seems to me that you have more than just the average amount of anger toward the FedCon failure. Did you have a financial stake in it?


I have a lot of anger over it. I have ALWAYS been an advocate of the fans, and I always will be. That's why SyFy Portal's coverage will veer off to cover money-making schemes that take advantage of the passion of fans, or questionable conventions like Slanted Fedora, and now FedCon.

If you come to SyFy Portal enough, you will see that we not only celebrate television and movies in a genre we love, but we also celebrate the passion of the fans. And we will do everything we can to protect fans from being preyed upon ... and when a predator is identified, you bet I'm going to be angry.
 
Michael, it seems to me that you have more than just the average amount of anger toward the FedCon failure. Did you have a financial stake in it?

It's all about Tim Brazeal and taking him down at any cost.
He peed in Hinnnnman's Cheerios. Notice we never hear from Hinmann unless we're talking about Tim Brazeal.

The man is obviously obsessed.
 
Last edited:
Michael, it seems to me that you have more than just the average amount of anger toward the FedCon failure. Did you have a financial stake in it?

It's all about Tim Brazeal and taking him down at any cost.
He peed in Hinnnnman's Cheerios. Notice we never hear from Hinmann unless we're talking about Tim Brazeal.

Yep, sorry, Number6, but I'm a busy guy. I barely have time to post in my own forum, and we don't have anywhere near the number of posters (or posts) TrekBBS has. So don't take it personally.

Plus, when I do show up, it makes it all the more meaningful for you. :)
 
Michael, it seems to me that you have more than just the average amount of anger toward the FedCon failure. Did you have a financial stake in it?

It's all about Tim Brazeal and taking him down at any cost.
He peed in Hinnnnman's Cheerios. Notice we never hear from Hinmann unless we're talking about Tim Brazeal.

Yep, sorry, Number6, but I'm a busy guy. I barely have time to post in my own forum, and we don't have anywhere near the number of posters (or posts) TrekBBS has. So don't take it personally.

Plus, when I do show up, it makes it all the more meaningful for you. :)
You've been a really busy guy here, especially when anyone mentions Tim Brazeal's name. The rest of the time, you're never here.

There is nothing you can write that will convince me that you're not acting on a personal vendetta. You lost any and all credibility with me three years ago. I'm sure that doesn't mean shit to you, because you're such an important guy and all, but there it is.
 
So, tell me Number 6, what part of the story did Michael get wrong 3 years ago?

I'll be right here waiting for a logical response.




It's all about Tim Brazeal and taking him down at any cost.
He peed in Hinnnnman's Cheerios. Notice we never hear from Hinmann unless we're talking about Tim Brazeal.

Yep, sorry, Number6, but I'm a busy guy. I barely have time to post in my own forum, and we don't have anywhere near the number of posters (or posts) TrekBBS has. So don't take it personally.

Plus, when I do show up, it makes it all the more meaningful for you. :)
You've been a really busy guy here, especially when anyone mentions Tim Brazeal's name. The rest of the time, you're never here.

There is nothing you can write that will convince me that you're not acting on a personal vendetta. You lost any and all credibility with me three years ago. I'm sure that doesn't mean shit to you, because you're such an important guy and all, but there it is.
 
So, tell me Number 6, what part of the story did Michael get wrong 3 years ago?

I'll be right here waiting for a logical response.
If you're really interested in my response (and I know you're not), you can go back to those threads three years ago and read my comments at the time.

Hinnmannn's coverage of Brazeal speaks very plainly like someone with a personal vendetta.

Did then, and does now.
 
Translation, Michael got it right, you just don't like the fact that he went after Brazeal.



So, tell me Number 6, what part of the story did Michael get wrong 3 years ago?

I'll be right here waiting for a logical response.
If you're really interested in my response (and I know you're not), you can go back to those threads three years ago and read my comments at the time.

Hinnmannn's coverage of Brazeal speaks very plainly like someone with a personal vendetta.

Did then, and does now.
 
Ok, you didn't like his style, or how you felt he handled Brazeal....I get that.


But was his reporting FACTUALLY wrong?
Are you really interested in an answer, because I have several, or are you more interested in lambasting me for not joining your little lynch mob?
 
No I wouldn't ask if I wasn't interested. Because, to me, the reporting and evidence seemed pretty clear cut, I'm just trying to get your perspective. Never hurts to get a different perspective on things.
 
Haha! Do you even live in America? Do you know the laws here?

When you represent yourself as something you aren't, or lead people to believe that you're something that you are not, or that you have a specific product that you don't ... that is called fraud.

Last time I checked, AGs everywhere love to tackle fraud.

In all fairness, numerous cases of fraud are perpetrated every day in this country and they're never investigated. No AG can investigate or prosecute them all. The ones that are taken on are usually high profile and/or provide some sort of political gain. As I said before, it was just a sci-fi convention and some people have gotten their money back. Lawyers yes, AG's no (but anything is possible).

The reason why many frauds aren't prosecuted is the same reason why so many people can speed down the highway: Just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you're never going to get caught.

There are some major issues here at play, issues which can help build a case.

Tim Brazeal decided to put on a convention. He announced a partnership with a well-known and well-established convention that had promised both operational and financial support. The well-established convention had a strong reputation not just with actors, but with attendees (or people who wish they could attend) as well.

He added guests as "confirmed" and opened up ticket sales, selling tickets to people who were expecting guests. Those guests cancelled for one reason or another, and were replaced. Those guests were cancelled for one reason or another and also replaced.

In the meantime, the big partnership that was announced dissolved, and it turned completely into a licensing situation, where Tim Brazeal was all on his own. With that, he continued to advertise big-name guests that would have a huge draw, but then never get them tickets to attend.

People traveled to Texas even as late as Friday believing these guests would be there. Radio ads, according to reports, even said these guys would be there. But people arrive ... and no headliners. John Billingsley is there, a few others are there, but not the people that were said to be there.

They are told there is shooting schedules interfering, that some are missing their planes. Which the latter is true ... they are missing their planes because they never had a seat on the plane and they are taking off without them.

Then the con gets cancelled. Refunds are only offered from cash reserves which came from same-day cash sales. Yet, even that isn't enough money to pay back the people who paid cash because some of that cash was spent right out of the till.

Vendors, attendees and even guests were led to believe ... strike that, had every REASON to believe that FedCon Germany was involved, because THEY SAID SO. THEY ANNOUNCED IT. AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE OTHERWISE.

Imagine I had a little software company and wanted to sell it to people on the Internet. I form a partnership with Microsoft, who says they will provide both financial and logistical support for my product. Microsoft doesn't like how I do things, and think my software is crap, so they pull out as a partner. But Bill Gates, being the charitable guy he is, lets me use his name for a short time after the partnership dissolves because I had some contracts with the Microsoft name on it.

You come to my site and see that my software carries the Microsoft brand. So you feel it has to be good (you're obviously not an evolved Mac user), so you buy it. A lot of people buy it.

What they end up with, if they even get it at all, is a shabby product that had nothing to do with Microsoft. I keep the money, and say I may return it but then point to my no return policy they agreed to when they made the purchase.

Do you think I did something fraudulent?

Sorry ... but it's a PERFECT analogy to what happened here.
Actually it isn't a perfect analogy. People expected FedConUSA to be good and NOBODY expects Microsoft to be good! :p

If a couple of Connor's fans hadn't talked to him and his agent at a con in England last November, we might never have known that he was not a signed (read: confirmed) guest when his picture went up on the FedConUSA site last August. In fact, during the partnership with FedCon Germany, Marc Lee promoted the con at the House of Tucker (where he has been a longtime member) so Connor fans were even being targeted for sales. I'm sure Marc did NOT know there was no contract. I think his association with FCUSA ended shortly afterward.

And according to someone who was with his convention agent in early Sept. last year, she had demanded they remove his picture and they didn't comply until late October. And lied to fans in their own forums when people questioned why his picture was no longer on the home page.

The lie wasn't exposed until I posted what my friends had told me about the lack of a contract weeks later. Somebody had the good sense to offer refunds on the spot and several people (including me) got them.
 
Michael, it seems to me that you have more than just the average amount of anger toward the FedCon failure. Did you have a financial stake in it?

It's all about Tim Brazeal and taking him down at any cost.
He peed in Hinnnnman's Cheerios.

Yep, that there is personal history for several folks remains a large part of it - a little bit of Google research will still turn up most of the details if anyone's really interested.
 
It's all about Tim Brazeal and taking him down at any cost.
He peed in Hinnnnman's Cheerios. Notice we never hear from Hinmann unless we're talking about Tim Brazeal.

Yep, sorry, Number6, but I'm a busy guy. I barely have time to post in my own forum, and we don't have anywhere near the number of posters (or posts) TrekBBS has. So don't take it personally.

Plus, when I do show up, it makes it all the more meaningful for you. :)
You've been a really busy guy here, especially when anyone mentions Tim Brazeal's name. The rest of the time, you're never here.

Yes, I'm such a monster. I only participate in discussions that interest me.

How ... human ... of me.

There is nothing you can write that will convince me that you're not acting on a personal vendetta.

Well, I am a lot of things, but I'm not a cure for closed-mindedness.

You lost any and all credibility with me three years ago. I'm sure that doesn't mean shit to you, because you're such an important guy and all, but there it is.

I'm hardly important at all. In fact, unlike Tim, I am NOT the most significant figure ever in fandom. I'm just me. I'm a business reporter by day, a sci-fi reporter at night, and a lover ... mmmm ... :drool: whatcha doing later?

=====

If you're really interested in my response (and I know you're not), you can go back to those threads three years ago and read my comments at the time.

Hinnmannn's coverage of Brazeal speaks very plainly like someone with a personal vendetta.

Did then, and does now. __________________

I'm interested in your response. Hell, I'm even responding to you despite the fact that your deliberate misspelling of my name could be construed as an attack against me, and likely against TrekBBS' TOS. You've been here for five years, according to your profile (but they aren't always right ... I've been here for nearly 10 years, but I think I lost my old registration at some point and just did a new one), so I think you probably know that already.

So let's hear how I was wrong. Please, get started ... share your facts.

=====

Jinx-01 said:
Actually it isn't a perfect analogy. People expected FedConUSA to be good and NOBODY expects Microsoft to be good!

Damn, you got me there, lol! I'm a Mac guy. I own a MacBook, an iMac, an iPhone, an AppleTV, and I worship Steve Jobs. =P I was just trying to be nice, lol.
 
No I wouldn't ask if I wasn't interested. Because, to me, the reporting and evidence seemed pretty clear cut, I'm just trying to get your perspective. Never hurts to get a different perspective on things.


OK. Fair enough.

Here you go:

As far as FedCon goes:

The failure of this event speaks for itself. It was a textbook failure of an ambitious first time promoter. I know this because I work with promoters 24/7!!!! This is never taken into account. Instead, all the dirty laundy that has ever been said about this guy comes out and it is all very political, instead of just legitimate research. The tone, rhetoric, and choice of words speak volumes that the "writer's intent."


My analogy: Fox News vs. Dixie Chicks. The Dixie Chicks let their political views enter their concerts and Fox used that to take them down. Every commentator would deride them in "casual" conversation and every little thing they could find about one of them kicking a puppy at age 6 was headline news.


As Far as TU and SE:
I personally saw nothing wrong with the fundraising to save the show.
I also knew that there was no prayer of Paramount letting fans "buy" a fifth season of ENT. The donated money was a symbolic thing for me, sending Paramount a message of the passion of the fans, much like the protests during the run of TOS. That's why I did it. You may ridicule it all you want, but my reasons for donating my money are my own.

The whole Al Vinci thing and all the other stuff dug out of the garbage was of Kenneth Starr proportions.

As someone who has worked in and out of that scene over the last 25 years, even IF the whole Vinci thing were true:

There is no way Paramount would take a fan donation and the money would have to be returned, whether the series got renewed for a fifth season or not.

If they did renewed for a fifth season, there is NO WAY those guys would have been allowed in the day to day production of the show for several reasons:

1. Industry professionals have NO patience for working with Ameteurs and the production and creative staff would have been very quick to show them the door.

2. Paramount would not sell creative control over a franchise because some fans put up some money. Their suggestions would have been ignored.

3. There is no way Paramount would ever sign any kind of collaborative deal with these guys in the first place.

The whole thing would have been remembered as a huge publicity stunt. If it didn't work there's no way fans wouldn't have gotten their money back. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, not doing so would result in a lot of pissed off fans no matter what.

If TB had any colors to show, he would have been done then and there if he didn't give back the money. He gave back the money.


So my only question was "what does this man have to gain by doing this?"
My answer: Recognition.

The constant barrage of drum beating for this man's head during a time where some fans lost their favourite show sent an ugly message to Fandom.
The people who were involved with destroying the credibility of TB seem to be the very same ones who gloated over the cancellation of ENT.

The coverage of the whole thing was very biased and zealous in its....zeal.

It's not the content of the facts, but how necessary it was to go that low to get them.

I have made that very plain and clear.

I don't like SyFy Portal's tabloid approach and I think that is a reflection of its owner and the way he uses his facts to tell his story. I don't think there's anything wrong with the fact that I am more interested in actual sci-fi news than I am in his personal opinion. Obviously he is well within his constitutional right to have whatever opinion he wants, but as an editor and publisher of words to a public audience he needs to realize that his approach makes him no better than the O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Springer's, and Rupert Murdochs of the world. Maybe he sees that as a good thing. I don't.
 
Last edited:
No I wouldn't ask if I wasn't interested. Because, to me, the reporting and evidence seemed pretty clear cut, I'm just trying to get your perspective. Never hurts to get a different perspective on things.


OK. Fair enough.

Here you go:

As far as FedCon goes:

The failure of this event speaks for itself. It was a textbook failure of an ambitious first time promoter. I know this because I work with promoters 24/7!!!!

You called me tabloidish? Talk about stretching the truth for sensational effect. I'm sure you sleep.

This is never taken into account. Instead, all the dirty laundy that has ever been said about this guy comes out and it is all very political, instead of just legitimate research. The tone, rhetoric, and choice of words speak volumes that the "writer's intent."

Yeah ... usually people are judged on their past credibility. That's how courts work it.

My analogy: Fox News vs. Dixie Chicks. The Dixie Chicks let their political views enter their concerts and Fox used that to take them down. Every commentator would deride them in "casual" conversation and every little thing they could find about one of them kicking a puppy at age 6 was headline news.

Huh? What is that analogous to?

As Far as TU and SE:
I personally saw nothing wrong with the fundraising to save the show.

Yeah ... because Paramount probably would've taken the money eventually. And who cares if Tim thought he would keep all the money in the end, successful or not, or how much interest he made off of everyone else's money.

I also knew that there was no prayer of Paramount letting fans "buy" a fifth season of ENT. The donated money was a symbolic thing for me, sending Paramount a message of the passion of the fans, much like the protests during the run of TOS. That's why I did it. You may ridicule it all you want, but my reasons for donating my money are my own.

It's not being ridiculed, but there's a more effective way of doing it: Pledges. The $3 million pledge seemed to be OK as a pledge ... why couldn't it be used for this cause? Hell, PBS accepts pledges.

The whole Al Vinci thing and all the other stuff dug out of the garbage was of Kenneth Starr proportions.

Nope. It goes to character. Especially since this scheme is pretty much the same as the last once, except this time with a different backdrop.

As someone who has worked in and out of that scene over the last 25 years, even IF the whole Vinci thing were true:

Yes, you keep throwing these credential around, but no one can corroborate it. I mean, I am here with my real name, and I'm an open book through a Google search. But yet, we are only going by your claims.

There is no way Paramount would take a fan donation and the money would have to be returned, whether the series got renewed for a fifth season or not.

Wow ... you knew that for sure? You say it with such authority.

If they did renewed for a fifth season, there is NO WAY those guys would have been allowed in the day to day production of the show for several reasons:

1. Industry professionals have NO patience for working with Ameteurs and the production and creative staff would have been very quick to show them the door.

2. Paramount would not sell creative control over a franchise because some fans put up some money. Their suggestions would have been ignored.

3. There is no way Paramount would ever sign any kind of collaborative deal with these guys in the first place.

The whole thing would have been remembered as a huge publicity stunt. If it didn't work there's no way fans would have gotten their money back. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, not doing so would result in a lot of pissed off fans no matter what.

Tim did everything he could to hold on to that money. He was practically forced to refund.

If TB had any colors to show, he would have been done then and there if he didn't give back the money. He gave back the money.

He had threats of legal action breathing down his neck. It's amazing what law enforcement can do, or just the thought of them. And he knew that people like me and some of the other journalists covering this weren't going to leave him alone until he refunded the money.

So my only question was "what does this man have to gain by doing this?"
My answer: Recognition.

I don't need recognition. Already have more than I need or want. Thanks!

The constant barrage of drum beating for this man's head during a time where some fans lost their favourite show sent an ugly message to Fandom.

Yes ... collecting tens of thousands of dollars of people's hard-earned money would do that.

The people who were involved with destroying the credibility of TB seem to be the very same ones who gloated over the cancellation of ENT.

You sound like Tim Brazeal. Because now it's not HIS fault that his credibility was shot ... it was the fault of everyone who exposed his character flaws.

The coverage of the whole thing was very biased and zealous in its....zeal.

Zealous in its zeal? Huh?

It's not the content of the facts, but how necessary it was to go that low to get them.

I have made that very plain and clear.

I don't like SyFy Portal's tabloid approach and I think that is a reflection of its owner and the way he uses his facts to tell a story.

Yes, because I am the ONLY tabloid entertainment news organization, lol.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the fact that I am more interested in sci-fi news than I am in his personal opinion. Obviously he is well within his constitutional right to have whatever opinion he wants, but as an editor and publisher of words to a public audience he needs to realize that his approach makes him no better than the O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Springer's, and Rupert Murdochs of the world. Maybe he sees that as a good thing. I don't.

I don't know who those people are, although I think I've heard of Rupert someone before ... wasn't he on Survivor?
 
^^The manner of these replies only underscores my point.

But thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I've said all I need to or want to about any of this.
 
Hell hath no fury like a celebrity scorned.

Can anyone photoshop a photo of Tim Brazeal as Satan, with Aaron Douglas as Jesus, doing battle? LOL

Rock on, Aaron! Rock on.
 
I appreciate that you took the time to lay out your thinking on the subject.

First let me clarify one point you made about the people who spoke out against Brazeal three years ago, that the nebulous "Them" were anti Enterprise and that Tim was a target of that group. I can speak for myself, though I know many others who were of the same mindset. I was active in the Enterprise Project group, we worked to save the show before Tim Brazeal did anything to "help". And I, and others, opposed Brazeal and his tactics. We loved the show, but we found Tim's actions to be questionable at best. So the gross generalization that everyone who had negative things to say about Tim really were anti Enterprise, basically is wrong.

^^The manner of these replies only underscores my point.

But thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I've said all I need to or want to about any of this.
 
^^The manner of these replies only underscores my point.

But thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I've said all I need to or want to about any of this.

I'm not surprised. All you offered were generic, non-substantive explanations that lacked qualification. What other response were you expecting?

"I do this, I do that, I do this 24/7 and never sleep" ... all fine and dandy, except how do we know that? I mean, I hate to break it to you, but your statements to follow it don't really give me the impression that it can be qualified ... I don't think it is.

If someone just couldn't get a convention together, and had to cancel it ... that would be one thing. That happens a lot. Cancelling a convention already in progress? That's pretty rare. In fact, even Fark.com had a good time with that ... they listed our story on the front page on Monday with a "dumbass" tag attached.


=====

james durdan said:
I appreciate that you took the time to lay out your thinking on the subject.

First let me clarify one point you made about the people who spoke out against Brazeal three years ago, that the nebulous "Them" were anti Enterprise and that Tim was a target of that group. I can speak for myself, though I know many others who were of the same mindset. I was active in the Enterprise Project group, we worked to save the show before Tim Brazeal did anything to "help". And I, and others, opposed Brazeal and his tactics. We loved the show, but we found Tim's actions to be questionable at best. So the gross generalization that everyone who had negative things to say about Tim really were anti Enterprise, basically is wrong.

I meant to address this as well. I'm tired of the spin that I and others who are against Tim are Enterprise haters.

Let's remember the whole history. SyFy Portal was BACKING Save Enterprise and later TrekUnited. We didn't just mention them from time to time, I was ACTIVE in helping the cause. I liked the fourth season (and in fact, I was pretty OK with the show for the most part ... ) and I didn't want to see Star Trek go.

For some reason, a few people can't seem to be able to tell the difference between liking the goal but disliking the road to get to that goal.

We all want to be rich, and I would love to be rich, but I'm not going to rob a bank to get rich.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top