What If: Voting on which fan films are officially canon

[urbandefault]

There is a problem: There is no creative collaboration with the fan base. CBS/Paramount exclude input from the very people who keep the franchise going. You may think that is for the best, but you can't expect me to accept that without a sufficient supporting argument.

Still waiting for that magic word.

Edited to add: CBS does accept input from the fan base. It's called ratings and box office receipts. The fans get to vote with their time and money.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is a problem: There is no creative collaboration with the fan base. CBS/Paramount exclude input from the very people who keep the franchise going. You may think that is for the best, but you can't expect me to accept that without a sufficient supporting argument.

As for sewing another head onto a body, one could argue that the J.J. Abrams movies are exactly that. Also, as seen with Star Wars, some limbs get amputated after the fact. Seems more like an argument for parallel canon than the rejection of a process for canon.

Fans are not collaborators. They are consumers. Their "vote" comes of form of ratings and ticket sales.

No. The Abrams films were made by Paramount. They are of the body.

 

[uniderth]

Theoretical Situation: Suppose CBS and Paramount decided to allow fan films to be nominated and voted on for canon. How could this be done?

1) Nomination - How would a fan film be nominated for voting? Who would nominate it? Would it have to be pre-screened for compatibility with existing canon, or could anything be nominated? Would it have to meet certain criteria regarding quality?

2) Voters - Who could vote for a fan film? Could anyone vote, or would it be limited to people who've been part of a fan production?

3) Guideline Compliance - Would only films that comply with the Star Trek Fan Film Guidelines be allow to be voted on, or would "grandfathered" films also be eligible?

4) Voting Method - Could people simply go to a non-secure website and vote, or would they have to get accounts, be verified in some way, and login to cast their vote?

5) Core Canon - Would it be fair to allow original Star Trek properties to automatically be canon? Does the concept of canon require a predetermined core, like some kind of nucleogenic particle around which canon forms? If not, could certain stories incompatible with a particular Trek property be voted in as canon, resulting in the property being rejected as canon for its incompatibility with existing canon?

Any other thoughts on this idea?

I've had a similar thought to something like this. Though I tried to imagine what it would be like in two hundred years when Kirk and Co. are Public Domain. Who would decide what is official in universe? Who would keep all the additional Material consistent. And the truth is that nobody would. Fanon would be canon. And it would be different for different people.

Still waiting for that magic word.

Edited to add: CBS does accept input from the fan base. It's called ratings and box office receipts. The fans get to vote with their time and money.

Sorry. With that cheesy grin on your avatar, I ain't givin' it to ya.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

CBS does accept input from the fan base. It's called ratings and box office receipts. The fans get to vote with their time and money.

Which is no better that Russia. Fans don't get to pick from multiple "candidates" or "run for office" themselves. At best, they can simple reject what was given to them, in which case the company that owns the franchise is free to interpret that as a rejection of the franchise rather than their offering. In fact, the whole idea that it's a vote is a myth, because they can always be overridden by the "electorial college" that runs the show. Executives can fund or axe what they want, regardless of how well it does.

Fans are not collaborators. They are consumers.

There's no reason you've stated that they can't be both.

Their "vote" comes of form of ratings and ticket sales.

That's not real input. That's not even mob rule, because at least the mob would have a unified message. Studios frequently substitute in their own beliefs about why a property is doing poorly rather than listening to external criticism.

No. The Abrams films were made by Paramount. They are of the body.

Yeah, because they smothered the previous "body" with a pillow as it lay sleeping.

 

[urbandefault]

Which is no better that Russia. Fans don't get to pick from multiple "candidates" or "run for office" themselves. At best, they can simple reject what was given to them, in which case the company that owns the franchise is free to interpret that as a rejection of the franchise rather than their offering. In fact, the whole idea that it's a vote is a myth, because they can always be overridden by the "electorial college" that runs the show. Executives can fund or axe what they want, regardless of how well it does.

There's no reason you've stated that they can't be both.

That's not real input. That's not even mob rule, because at least the mob would have a unified message. Studios frequently substitute in their own beliefs about why a property is doing poorly rather than listening to external criticism.

Yeah, because they smothered the previous "body" with a pillow as it lay sleeping.

There is no reason from a business standpoint to let fans dictate to creators what will be created or deemed "official." Fans don't own the property. Hell, from most evidence presented by The Internet, fans don't even like it.

CBS doesn't really even have to produce new Trek to profit from it. It's like I Love Lucy: decades later, it's still a cash cow.

It sounds like you're demanding that fans be given control of the franchise. You have to know that if it happened, it would be catastrophic, an axe to the brain pan.

And I'm still waiting for the magic word.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

To steal some wise words from Nicholas Meyer, fans do not always know what is best. And it would suffocate the creators if they were expected to kowtow to every whim of a diverse, argumentative, poorly-defined group of fans. It makes absolutely no sense, from a creative or quality control perspective, to give the keys to "the fans," which is such a vague term to begin with.

EDIT: Have you ever heard the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen?" This idea is like that x1000.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There's no reason you've stated that they can't be both.

Some are both. Many fans have gone on to contribute to the franchise. But not all fans get to do that. Those that do had more to offer than just being a fan. They became professionals.

That's not real input. That's not even mob rule, because at least the mob would have a unified message. Studios frequently substitute in their own beliefs about why a property is doing poorly rather than listening to external criticism.

That's the way it works. They create. We consume. To expect more is fan entitlement and delusion.
Studios look at the numbers. That's their part of the equation. Since they are putting up the money, it's their right.

Yeah, because they smothered the previous "body" with a pillow as it lay sleeping.

Nope. It's all one body called "Star Trek".

 

[Matthew Raymond]

There is no reason from a business standpoint to let fans dictate to creators what will be created or deemed "official." Fans don't own the property.

True, but what you speak of is clearly not democracy. The whole voting metaphor is nonsense. That's not to say that it's unfair for the copyright holder to exercise their rights under copyright. Let's just not pretend it has anything to do with democracy, because it doesn't.

Hell, from most evidence presented by The Internet, fans don't even like it.

Of course they don't. The franchise ignores their input. There's no engagement or participation.

CBS doesn't really even have to produce new Trek to profit from it. It's like I Love Lucy: decades later, it's still a cash cow.

In that scenario, including fan films in canon is the ONLY way we can get new Star Trek.

It sounds like you're demanding that fans be given control of the franchise.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be having a problem understanding the words "what if", "theoretical" and "hypothetical". I'm not sure why.

For the record, I'm not demanding anything. The topic was never about how to make CBS/Paramount relinquish the copyright to Star Trek. I'm exploring a theoretical model of how things could be. This model could then either be applied to a new franchise, or utilized when Star Trek falls into public domain. (That's assuming Congress ever lets that happen. See Eldred v. Ashcroft.)

So far, I've gotten more messages on the probability of it actually happening instead of how it could actually work, which I must admit is rather irritating.

And I'm still waiting for the magic word.

Please?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Some are both. Many fans have gone on to contribute to the franchise. But not all fans get to do that. Those that do had more to offer than just being a fan. They became professionals.

...And thus relinquish their right to work on fan films per the Guidelines.

That's the way it works. They create. We consume. To expect more is fan entitlement and delusion.

There is no expectation. You're deliberately ignoring the fact that this is framed as a hypothetical. I even used the words "in a parallel universe".

Nope. It's all one body called "Star Trek".

Only with the help of some serious cognitive dissonance. If the events of the 2009 Star Trek movie occurred, then the events of Discovery never happened unless Discovery is a direct sequel series to the J.J. Abrams movies. Star Trek: First Contact establishes that changes in the past overwrite the timeline rather than creating a parallel universe with different events. Otherwise, when the Borg sphere travels into the past, nothing would have happened to the Enterprise. This is backed up by City on the Edge of Forever. So, if Star Trek 2009 happened, Discovery didn't, even before the first episode is made available. Clearly, there are two bodies of work here.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is no expectation. You're deliberately ignoring the fact that this is framed as a hypothetical. I even used the words "in a parallel universe".

Even a hypothetical needs to look at the data and facts involved.

Only with the help of some serious cognitive dissonance. If the events of the 2009 Star Trek movie occurred, then the events of Discovery never happened unless Discovery is a direct sequel series to the J.J. Abrams movies. Star Trek: First Contact establishes that changes in the past overwrite the timeline rather than creating a parallel universe with different events. Otherwise, when the Borg sphere travels into the past, nothing would have happened to the Enterprise. This is backed up by City on the Edge of Forever. So, if Star Trek 2009 happened, Discovery didn't, even before the first episode is made available. Clearly, there are two bodies of work here.

The body of work is Star Trek. All the films and series produced over the years by Desilu, Paramount and CBS. Whether or not the stories in that body of work takes place in Universe X or Universe Y is irrelevant.

True, but what you speak of is clearly not democracy. The whole voting metaphor is nonsense. That's not to say that it's unfair for the copyright holder to exercise their rights under copyright. Let's just not pretend it has anything to do with democracy, because it doesn't.

I believe you introduced voting into the mix.

Of course they don't. The franchise ignores their input. There's no engagement or participation.

As I said, their ( our) input comes from buying tickets and watching shows. The studios look at that. They can also write letters.

In that scenario, including fan films in canon is the ONLY way we can get new Star Trek.

Lucky for us the studio is still making TV shows and movies. So scenario avoided.

 

[BillJ]

Which is no better that Russia. Fans don't get to pick from multiple "candidates" or "run for office" themselves. At best, they can simple reject what was given to them, in which case the company that owns the franchise is free to interpret that as a rejection of the franchise rather than their offering. In fact, the whole idea that it's a vote is a myth, because they can always be overridden by the "electorial college" that runs the show. Executives can fund or axe what they want, regardless of how well it does.

Wow. What nonsense. Seriously. We're comparing an entertainment property to Russia?

Somebody get the Shatner "Get a Life!" meme, STAT!!!

 

[BillJ]

In that scenario, including fan films in canon is the ONLY way we can get new Star Trek.

So you are saying that novels aren't "new" Star Trek because they aren't canon?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I cannot imagine any creator of any kind relinquishing control over their own art to "the fans." And god, when has art by committee ever not been terrible? This is literally the plot of Misery.

 

[Nerys Myk]

 

[Matthew Raymond]

So you are saying that novels aren't "new" Star Trek because they aren't canon?

Are you saying fan films aren't "new" Star Trek because they aren't canon?

 

[BillJ]

Are you saying fan films aren't "new" Star Trek because they aren't canon?

I'm not one basing their value on their canon status.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

LOL Yeah whenever fans think they can dictate to creators what they should and shouldn't do, or think they should have an equal voice in the creative process as the writers and directors, I just hear it through Annie Wilkes' voice.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Also my girlfriend just pointed out to me that if we do this "canon by committee" idea, get ready for tons of slash porn to become Official Star Trek Canon. I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[Nerys Myk]

Porthos/Spot/Livingston

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Porthos/Spot/Livingston

I just died.