ive read people point to the animated series to say Trek can work on 30 minutes, and TBH I dont agree the episode always felt rushed to me and lacking in detail, sure it has other problems, but I really dont know how much scope there is to tell a good story and feed the entire cast of something like Continues in 30 minutes of story.
The Axanar Case - did it wreck our community?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
I don't know why not. Of the 47 productions we have On-line, only four of them are more than 15 mins, only 1 is more than 30 mins. I believe 15 mins is a reasonable time limit to work with, and I think it forces writers and productions to trim the fat out of their work, making for a tighter and more entertaining story.
An awful lot of modern Trek episodes would be thirty minutes or less minus their B plot, and would still work fine. The Twilight Zone, as one notable example, did absolutely fine in thirty minute segments, Thirty minutes is ample time to tell a complex, satisfying story. That TAS rarely did so was a limitation of that particular series, not the length of the episodes.
Shorter productions also mean those B plots can be the focus of a 7 min short as we have done with several of our characters such as Ens. T'Noshi or Lt. Mallon or Ens. Loth.
I think the point of the restricted time limit is precisely so that fan filmmakers won't be making episodes, they'll be making true short films.
Exactly.
am sorry that I will not see P2 / NV finish their stories, or the Farragut crew warp into the movie era. But I would like to see how this epoch makes filmmakers evolve. TAS did it in 30 min and all of those Next Gen era two stories that simply were not enough to be an hour by themselves, but miraculously converge so neatly at the end could now be a 30 min episode ...yes those were series, so now maybe we'll see more anthology style stories, so the capital investments will not be for a one shot and done project. Ok actor last week you played Captian Phil, this week commander Jones. or maybe folks saying it's a series that is compliant with the rest of the guidelines.
I feel that the larger budgets were the key driver in the guidelines and most the other rules would be enforced naturally because of the budget restrictions, I mean what is Richard Hatch's rate?
no really what is his rate, would he do a birthday party?
I feel that the larger budgets were the key driver in the guidelines and most the other rules would be enforced naturally because of the budget restrictions, I mean what is Richard Hatch's rate?
no really what is his rate, would he do a birthday party?
Last edited:
ok i have not seen your shorts, so hard for me to comment, BUT ive seen short form versions of both TV shows, and things like Star Trek Continues, and they have never compared well to the long form, near always left with a "so what" feeling about them. This is not to judge any production, there are professional shows I love like Doctor Who, who have done mini episodes or TARDISodes, and just nothing, for every Time Crash there are the before mentioned TARDISodes.
not to put cat amongst pigeons here, but that is Star Trek, or at least what I see Star Trek as. The movies are hit and miss, but I see Star Trek as a TV show, as something with long form episodes. Of course there are stories to tell which benefit from being one or two parts rather than an entire series, but if a story is worth telling, tell it, not rush it.
I challenge you, wamdue, to go watch these four productions:
"The Archive"
Then tell me we can't tell a story in 15 mins.
Potemkin Pictures has long specialized in the short form. I assure you that it can be done.
The problem is, not every fan production can handle long form episodes. There are, of course, the exceptions to the rule, but most fan films I've watched struggle with the length. 30 minutes is plenty of time to service and A and a B plot if done well.
If you watch the average Star Trek episode, how much is filler? How many minutes can be trimmed down? The trick in a fan production is to make use of every resource and that includes time.
TNG was renowned for what the writers called "Piller Filler," where Michael Piller would write new scenes purely because the episode runtime came up short.
Indeed. I simply don't understand this mindset that good, deep, compelling stories can't be told in thirty minutes or less. M*A*S*H*? Twilight Zone? Have Gun Will Travel?
Yeah, I feel bad for the people who contributed too. Hopefully they'll at least get something for their money, and I think that's the biggest up side to the settlement.
Exactly. There was always going to be an Axanar and an Alec Peters of some kind. It was inevitable.
The real problem is that CBS/Paramount had no dialogue with the community to start with. At any point, they could have invited people from the fan community to help them form policies and guidelines regarding fan content, but instead they just dropped some lawyer-written guidelines one day and told us that it was their way or the highway. They had a choice on how to handle this. They chose poorly.
Furthermore, the guidelines provide no real legal defense. They grant no license (or even a covenant not to sue, for that matter), they can be changed at will, and CBS/Paramount can just change their minds at any time and sue you anyway. The problem isn't that we lost any legal rights. The problem is that we never had them in the first place.
It was never worth the time or the PR to sue the small fry to begin with. It was always highly ambitious groups like Star Trek Continues that had the most to lose, and several of the guidelines hit them squarely in the chest.
The whole idea of a time limit is preposterous. For example, the average length of a novel is 60,000 words or more, so imagine they came out with a guideline that said that fan fiction can't be longer than 15,000 words, and that you can't do a series of stories. However, if you split a story into two separate files, you can use 30,000 words (including the words from the title page and license in both documents, and the words in the foreword). Just that simple change in context shows how absurd it really is.
A number of you are suggesting that compelling stories can still be told in 15 to 30 minutes. That is certainly true, but that doesn't mean EVERY compelling story can be told in that time, and it certainly doesn't mean YOUR story can be told in a compelling manner given that kind of time limit.
Assuming 15 minute short films can be as compelling per minute as longer fair, the guideline serves no purpose. If the time constraint is supposed to prevent people from watching fan films in lieu of watching "the real thing", it will fail as soon as there is enough compelling short films. Hate the new J.J. Abrams films? Watch a playlist of short films in the same amount of time.
I would argue that the 15 minute guideline only makes sense if there is a difference in the kind of story telling you can do with a longer format. Just look at The Last Airbender and compare it to the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Yes, I know there were a lot of problems with writing, directing and casting that had nothing to do with the source material, but there was no way anyone could cram a full season's worth of characters into a 103 minute movie and do them all justice. The proper format for that story was a full series, not a single movie. Similarly, the best format for some stories will not be 15 or even 30 minutes.
Character development takes time. Exploring a topic deeply and from many angles takes time. Trying to cram everything into a time period that isn't suitable encourages exposition and faster pacing that may not be suitable for the subject matter.
Bottom line: The time and series limitations are intended to exclude a specific type of long-form storytelling, and we should make excuses for it.
Which doesn't matter, because you can't do a series anyway.
Seriously, though, the A and B plots often build on each other, reinforce each other, and combine at the end of a story. Some B plots are even superior to some A plots. Irrelevance is not a characteristic of B plots, it's a characteristic of bad writing.
Not having enough time to properly tell that kind of story is the whole idea.
ok I am very tried and as such have only watched the first one. Yes a story has been told, I cant deny that, but its rushed story, everything is said in front of everybody else, stuff is said not just to explain the plot, but because that is the only way for it to be included. Everything just happens one after the other, because there is no room for anything other than the basic plot.
I think the expression im looking for is "show me dont tell me", you have starship bridge, a few minutes on the brdige at the start to set things up (and learn someone scanned the ships database) could easily work, rather than us only being told that happened, when the programs explains why it did that
Yeah, I feel bad for the people who contributed too. Hopefully they'll at least get something for their money, and I think that's the biggest up side to the settlement.
Exactly. There was always going to be an Axanar and an Alec Peters of some kind. It was inevitable.
The real problem is that CBS/Paramount had no dialogue with the community to start with. At any point, they could have invited people from the fan community to help them form policies and guidelines regarding fan content, but instead they just dropped some lawyer-written guidelines one day and told us that it was their way or the highway. They had a choice on how to handle this. They chose poorly.
Furthermore, the guidelines provide no real legal defense. They grant no license (or even a covenant not to sue, for that matter), they can be changed at will, and CBS/Paramount can just change their minds at any time and sue you anyway. The problem isn't that we lost any legal rights. The problem is that we never had them in the first place.
It was never worth the time or the PR to sue the small fry to begin with. It was always highly ambitious groups like Star Trek Continues that had the most to lose, and several of the guidelines hit them squarely in the chest.
The whole idea of a time limit is preposterous. For example, the average length of a novel is 60,000 words or more, so imagine they came out with a guideline that said that fan fiction can't be longer than 15,000 words, and that you can't do a series of stories. However, if you split a story into two separate files, you can use 30,000 words (including the words from the title page and license in both documents, and the words in the foreword). Just that simple change in context shows how absurd it really is.
A number of you are suggesting that compelling stories can still be told in 15 to 30 minutes. That is certainly true, but that doesn't mean EVERY compelling story can be told in that time, and it certainly doesn't mean YOUR story can be told in a compelling manner given that kind of time limit.
Assuming 15 minute short films can be as compelling per minute as longer fair, the guideline serves no purpose. If the time constraint is supposed to prevent people from watching fan films in lieu of watching "the real thing", it will fail as soon as there is enough compelling short films. Hate the new J.J. Abrams films? Watch a playlist of short films in the same amount of time.
I would argue that the 15 minute guideline only makes sense if there is a difference in the kind of story telling you can do with a longer format. Just look at The Last Airbender and compare it to the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Yes, I know there were a lot of problems with writing, directing and casting that had nothing to do with the source material, but there was no way anyone could cram a full season's worth of characters into a 103 minute movie and do them all justice. The proper format for that story was a full series, not a single movie. Similarly, the best format for some stories will not be 15 or even 30 minutes.
Character development takes time. Exploring a topic deeply and from many angles takes time. Trying to cram everything into a time period that isn't suitable encourages exposition and faster pacing that may not be suitable for the subject matter.
Bottom line: The time and series limitations are intended to exclude a specific type of long-form storytelling, and we should make excuses for it.
Which doesn't matter, because you can't do a series anyway.
Seriously, though, the A and B plots often build on each other, reinforce each other, and combine at the end of a story. Some B plots are even superior to some A plots. Irrelevance is not a characteristic of B plots, it's a characteristic of bad writing.
Not having enough time to properly tell that kind of story is the whole idea.
I am currently studying for my masters...my current script assignment, for a chunk of my overall mark, is limited to fifteen minutes and must tell a complete story.
So...it can possibly be done.
I would agree it can't be done well, which is extremely frustrating.
They were totally within their rights according to the law. The choice may not suit me or you, but it was their right and they had no legal obligation to do anything else. The iP is THEIRS and refusing to give someone express permission to violate that IP in any way, shape or form is not something they have any obligation to do. Being 'the world's greatest fan' doesn't change that.
This isn't an argument. It's a rant. Look at the Academy Award rules for short films: 40 minutes or less. I guarantee plenty of them are quite a lot shorter than that. Look at classic cartoons and how often they tell a complete story with fully developed plot and characters.
As far as the argument that not every story can be told in 15 minutes, my response is "so what?". CBS/Paramount doesn't have to allow any fan productions of any length. Just as Marvel doesn't, oh and just try to do some sort of fan production based on Anne Rice and see what happens.
The fact is that, mega corporation or not, CBS/Paramount is the victim here of someone trying to illegally profit off their intellectual property and they had a right and an obligation to their shareholders to react.
Agreed, Mike. They don't owe us a dialogue. And as someone who has been part of the fanfilm community for over decade, I'm sorry but I'm getting really tired of this whole entitlement attitude. Fanfilms are not a right, they're a privilege. If you can't tell your story within the fanfilm environment then I respectfully suggest you go and produce something original.
Continues always gets held up as a "yeah, but" argument, but here's the thing: Continues has absolutely zero to lose because they're a real live non-profit organization with the paperwork to prove it. Also, STC is no longer fundraising, and is in the process of completing their last episodes. Not to mention the fact that they are clearly not trying to compete with CBS and Paramount with their fan films.
The only thing AP managed to do was collect and spend a buttload of money and get himself sued.