I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week.
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
The show had its downfalls yes! did the show suck NO! its like the whole JAr JAr thing, some hate it some like it....
Whether or not you agree with the way copyright law works or think it should be changed is irrelevant to the fact that people still have to follow whatever the current law is. If you think the speed limit on a certain road in your city is too low, you can lobby your local politicians to try to get it changed. But you don't get to ignore the current limit just because you don't like it. Regardless of whether Alec Peters agrees with how copyright law works or thinks it needs to be changed, he still broke the current rules, which means he is the one in the wrong.
Yep, and no amount of spin that paints Peters as the second coming of Gene Roddenberry won't change a thing. The law is the law.
I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week.
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
Are you talking about 'Enterprise', or the premiere episode of TNG in 1987? I ask because what you describe is how most TOS fans (myself included) saw TNG - and further, saw nothing to change that opinion until midway through it's third season (and no, I'm not being hyperbolic - saw my first TOS episode 'Elaan of Troyius ' (from its third season in 1969) at age 6 and have been watching Star Trek even since. Saw TAS and all the feature films first run and all the subsequent series first run too.)
BTW - ENT was no better of worse with regard to 're-writing canon' than any of the other Star Trek films or series. The notion that 'Star Trek' was some cohesive 'future history' that sprang fully formed from the mind of Gene Roddenberry is ridiculous. So is the claim that his whole purpose in making Star Trek was to 'enlighten'. He made Star Trek to make a living and for the money. Also, he wasn't very good at 'world building' - as if he had his way 'Spock' was originally going to be a Martian - until many people informed him that NASA had near conclusive evidence (in 1964) there was no intelligent life on Mars. Most of the popular and 'visionary' elements that Star Trek fans attributed to GR today (because GR loved taking credit for everything Star Trek as the years passed); was added by Gene L. Coon. Anyone who really bothered to look into GR's history with Hollywood and Star Trek in particular would know that he was FAR from the altruistic humanist/defender of woman's rights, etc.
In fact TOS canon was so inconsistent fans came up with a term when discussing minutiae of the show:
YATI = "Yet Another Trek Inconsistency" (no, I'm not kidding.)
Hell, if GR were alive today and looking at STO - his main comment about the game in general would most likely be: "Hey, what's my cut? (of the profits)
As a fan since 1969 my ranking of the Star Trek franchise TV series (from best to worst):
1) TOS
2) ENT
3) DS9
4) TAS
5) TNG
.
.
.
.
.
.
*) VOY (Started with a great premise that was all but abandoned by its third episode - and was (IMO) so poorly and inconsistently written that its the only Star Trek series I have not watched in its entirety - and stopped watching regularly after the episode "The 37's" aired as I couldn't buy that NONE of the Maqui (or even a few Fed crewmembers) would want to stay behind on what was essentially an Earth colony; especially when they were facing a 70 year trip; or if they did manage to get back in a few years, jail time. Remember the Maqui were former Federation members who didn't hold with Federation ideals and refused to adhere to Federation policy, etc.) That this series is liked by a number of Star trek fans confounds me. VMMY of course and just goes to show that people watch Star Trek for varying reasons.
As for the Feature films:
1) STII:TWoK/ST:ID (yes - Star Trek: Into Darkness) <-- Tie depending on my mood.
2) ST2009
3) ST:TMP
4)STIV:TVH
5)STIII:TSFS
6)ST:FC (IMO - the only Next Generation feature film worth watching)
7)STVI:TUC
8)ST:NEM
9)ST:GEN
10)ST:INS
11)STV:TFF (Yes, I'm a huge fan of TOS and its cast, but this film was absolute TRIBBLE front to back)
In the end, I guess my point is: There is no ONE TRUE definition of what 'Star Trek' is or what makes 'Good Trek'. If you ask 100 Star Trek fans what Star Trek 'is'?...you'll get 110 different answers. There is no 'true' Star Trek.
And again as I've said, I backed Axanar and wanted to see the final product (and still would). That said, I understand completely why CBS/Paramount initiated the lawsuit they did because in the end, Axanar IS making money for various members of the production (and no I'm not talking the SAG and other Union production members who must be paid scale); and the evidence is there that they did intend to use backer monies (and were in the process of doing so) to create their own 'for profit' studio to produce/rent out to 'legitimate' projects for profit. I also find it interesting how many people claim Axanar is 'what the fans want' when so far, all they've produced of the actual film they ultimately want to make is a 3 minute clip of the 'Ambassador Soval' character talking to an aide on Vulcan. Can so many judge the overall quality of any film (or the ultimate execution of the full story) based on a 3 minute clip? If so, wow, I didn't know Star Trek had such a clairvoyant fan base.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
And I still don't get this "CBS is the devil" nonsense... yes, corporations are heartless, but I don't hear too many complaining about Disney at the moment...
Oh, I hate Disney's handling of copyright even more than CBS's. I've said this before: there's a reason the legislations that extended corporate copyright are often called "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act."
It is not "fanfiction" to do a dramatic adaptation based on pre-existing folk tales, tales, and legends, with the intent of trying to be as faithful to the original as possible. If Shakespeare was a fan fiction writer, we might as well start calling every screenwriter, broadway composer and filmmaker who faithfully adapted a story into a different medium a fan fictioner--Alfred Hitchcock, Walt Disney, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Stanley Kubrick, etc.
It's not technically fanfiction, but it's the same sort of process: taking an existing work and expanding on it, reshaping it, reimagining it.
I don't expect stories to stay the same: our species is changing, and our stories change with us.
When our species "change", we don't piggyback onto old ideas. We use the old ideas as inspiration to create new ones.
You can do the same. If Star Trek no longer works for you because of how times have changed, why not make your "own" stories that speak to your era using a similar concept as the IP you love so much, rather than just taking it and distorting the original author's intent? It worked for the creators of The X Files (who based the show on Kolchak: The Night Stalker). It worked for the creators of House, a show inspired by Sherlock Holmes. It worked for the creators of Battlestar Galactica (Star Wars), Hogan's Heroes (Stalag 17), for a host of other shows and movies that took an IP, said, "Let's create something new based on this idea."
And that's exactly what I want to see. That's why I've been talking at length about people making things from Trek "even if it's not something we recognize as Trek." If Trek is a good base from which to build off of, I want authors to have as much latitude to use it as they need. They can embrace it and call it Trek, or they can just borrow elements.
Because that's the purpose of copyright law. Copyright law is not about protecting the creators--if it were, copyright would be eternal. Copyright is a carrot to dangle in front of creators to encourage them to create things that then become common property. The end goal is to generate work which the public can consume, reference, and build upon freely.
As someone who used to freelance and was an aspiring writer (and so had to learn this topic backwards and forwards), I'd like to know where you got this idea that this is the "purpose of copyright law"?
If they look tacky, it's because they're old. This is hardly a new idea I'm putting out.
Or check out the website of the US Copyright Office. They don't say that the purpose is protect anyone's commercial interests, they say "...the purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society..." http://copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
Protect creators from having their works appropriated by others and not getting proper credit for it
Grant creators complete and total creative control over their work in the way they see fit
Prevent others from financially exploiting their works
No, that's the means. The function of copyright law is to grand all those protections, but the point is to add to the pool of material available to the community.
The reason why works fall into the public domain is that after an author dies, there's literally no reason for copyright to exist anymore. A dead author can't be financially exploited if someone decides to make a profit off his work because he's...wait for it...dead.
A dead author doesn't need copyright protection from plagiarism/IP theft, because by the time copyright has expired, usually the author and his work is so well known by that point that it's impossible for someone to rip his ideas off and take credit. For example, if someone ripped off Oliver Twist, everyone would know that it was Oliver Twist and that Dickens had written it, since it's been in the public consciousness for so long. There would be no danger of the public going, "Wow, this new author who just created this story about a little orphan boy is such a genius!" Everyone would say, "Oh, this is Oliver Twist, and Dickens wrote it." So this is, once again, why copyright law isn't "forever."
But if the purpose is to protect from theft, why bother having a public domain? Why go through the hassle of keeping track of what's public domain and what isn't, or using a system where people go to court to argue over whether something is public domain or not? It takes money, resources, and bureaucracy to do that. Why not just have a blanket "This belongs to the author and his heirs and no-one else can use it, ever" clause?
Another reason why works are allowed to fall into the public domain is that it allows everyone the freedom to do adaptations/translations of stories in a different medium, without having to go through hurdles to do so. If a person wants to do a musical version of Oliver Twist, they can do it. If someone wants to do a stage play based on The Grapes of Wrath, they can do it. Key word being adaptation, not "expanded universe" stuff, not fan fiction nonsense, not "reboots", none of that stuff.
But why accept a musical version of Oliver Twist but not a "reboot" of it set in the modern day, which tackles modern issues? Or a new work entirely which only draws vaguely from the original (For example, Forbidden Planet is a sci-fi movie that draws from The Tempest)? Why should the story have to remain static?
So there's no basis whatsoever to your comment that copyright law "is a carrot to dangle in front of creators to encourage them to create things that then become common property, with the end goal is to generate work which the public can consume, reference, and build upon freely." This is just spin that a lot of people often use to justify derivative works or flat out plagiarism.
See above for my rebuttal to the first part of this. As for it being used to justify plagiarism, the fact that an argument can be misused does not render the argument false.
I've also heard it said in musical circles, too, that innovative musicians and composers have no right to complain about copyright infringement, because music is about "sharing." In other words, musicians are supposed to come up with these highly innovative, unique, personal compositions and not care if some two-bit rapper or auto-tuned pop singer with zero talent samples their music and gets all the money, accolades and credit for coming up with "good music." With this attitude, we're getting this close to returning to the days when broke-TRIBBLE blues musicians were out panhandling while Elvis Presley was making bank on their hard work.
They do have the right. It's in the law. The key is that they don't get to keep that right forever. Let them make their fortunes (or not) off their hard work, and then put it into the public domain where it benefits everybody.
And honestly, the copyright of the individual creator isn't really what I'm against. Corporate copyright like what we're dealing with here is what really gets my hackles up.
Whether or not you agree with the way copyright law works or think it should be changed is irrelevant to the fact that people still have to follow whatever the current law is. If you think the speed limit on a certain road in your city is too low, you can lobby your local politicians to try to get it changed. But you don't get to ignore the current limit just because you don't like it. Regardless of whether Alec Peters agrees with how copyright law works or thinks it needs to be changed, he still broke the current rules, which means he is the one in the wrong.
Of course. The law is the law, as mhall points out, but I'm taking this as a opportunity to make that argument that it should be changed, so that we can have things like Axanar instead of (or at least in addition to) things like JJ-Trek.
In fairness, Armsman, Roddenberry was a supporter of women's rights (a radical position at the time, as you may remember), as well as, well, a lover of women. He didn't have to cast Majel as Number One in the first pilot, and in fact that was one of the things the network objected to (as well as its cerebral tone). And he kind of snuck Nichelle Nichols into the show, even before he started sleeping with her. (According to Nichelle, he told network execs he wanted to "add a bit of color" to the bridge, and let them go ahead and think he meant repainting the set right up until her contract was signed.)
He was certainly no respecter of marital vows, but it was my understanding that Majel went into their marriage with her eyes wide open (having already been one of his conquests - as he wasn't really that impressive to look at, I can only imagine he must have had a silver tongue in person).
On the gripping hand, you're right about who should get worldbuilding credit - Coon invented the UFP, Starfleet Command, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Prime Directive, and just about everything else that could be considered a continuing development. (Roddenberry said at first that the Enterprise was from the United Earth Space Agency, and wasn't even sure she should be armed.) And Dorothy Fontana should have had a co-writing credit on about 70% of the scripts they filmed.
In fairness, Armsman, Roddenberry was a supporter of women's rights (a radical position at the time, as you may remember), as well as, well, a lover of women. He didn't have to cast Majel as Number One in the first pilot, and in fact that was one of the things the network objected to (as well as its cerebral tone). And he kind of snuck Nichelle Nichols into the show, even before he started sleeping with her. (According to Nichelle, he told network execs he wanted to "add a bit of color" to the bridge, and let them go ahead and think he meant repainting the set right up until her contract was signed.)
He was certainly no respecter of marital vows, but it was my understanding that Majel went into their marriage with her eyes wide open (having already been one of his conquests - as he wasn't really that impressive to look at, I can only imagine he must have had a silver tongue in person).
On the gripping hand, you're right about who should get worldbuilding credit - Coon invented the UFP, Starfleet Command, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Prime Directive, and just about everything else that could be considered a continuing development. (Roddenberry said at first that the Enterprise was from the United Earth Space Agency, and wasn't even sure she should be armed.) And Dorothy Fontana should have had a co-writing credit on about 70% of the scripts they filmed.
Majel Barrett should because remember to, GR was married when he cast and was having relations with Majel Barret; BUT NOT married top Majel Barrett. And again contrary to the story GR tells, the Network did not object to the female character of 'Number One' - they just objected to Majel Barret in the role tor two reasons:
1) She didn't have a lot of acting experience (and they didn't think she could carry a lead role on an EXPENSIVE series.)
and
2) She was the mistress (remember he was married) of the Executive Producer of (again) an EXPENSIVE series; and IF said series was a hit - what would happen (production-wise) if the lead actress and the EP of the show broke up?
Also, GR's claim that he was the instigator of the 'multi-racial' element of Star Trek (with the Network not 100% on board) has been debunked too. If you look at the first pilot Star Trek (The Cage) - you'll notice the Enterprise crew is hardly multi-racial. the crew is a carbon copy of the type of crew from the film Forbidden Planet <--- which was GR's template for Star Trek. Also, NBC already had a show with a multi-racial cast (and extras) in "I Spy" (Robert Culp and Bill Cosby as the leads).
What happened was between the time of the filming of "The Cage" there was a memo from NBC Brass asking Producers on all their shows to diversify casting because Nielson was starting to provide demographic data and advertisers realized that A LOT of minorities were watching TV in general and they wanted to appeal top that segment. (There used to be a site that linked to a photocopy of that memo, but it's gone - the closed I could find was this article that discusses the situation:
Again I too used to believe the GR stories he told and parrot them; but many people who were involved first hand started giving interviews and showing various documents that show that GR was never above embellishing something to make himself look good. The Network wasn't a bunch of Neanderthals being dragged kicking and screaming into the 'light' of GR's 'vision'. They had sound business reasons for what they were approving/not approving.
As for the rejection of "The Cage" - yes ONE of the reasons given was that someone at the Network felt it was "Too Cerebral"; KOWEVER the main reason was the COST of the pilot - and the fact the pilot ran 70 minutes (the reason for the latter was Desilu and GR hedged their bets in that IF 'Star Trek' was outright rejected - they planned to do a theatrical release of the pilot - and if you saw some of the sci fi films made in the early 1960ies - it would have done okay in the theatre if released.) The thing was, NBC (who only paid a licensing fee and didn't pony up 100% of production costs at the time); wanted proof that Star Trek was production sustainable - and could produce watchable, entertaining episodes on a 'TV budget'; so when they commissioned the second pilot, they imposed a ceiling on what could be spent to see if what GR had promised was possible week to week.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
And with regard to the "bastardized" attributes you mention, the show might be closer to the mark than you think. I'm no expert on Holmes, but I'm fairly certain that he did have a certain social awkwardness and annoying aura, and I seem to recall that there might indeed have been homoerotic undertext in the original stories. I know Holmes was an opium addict.
As someone who read the originals as a kid.... I LOVED the RDJ version. It did a wonderful job of encapsulating how eccentric Holmes was and borderline mad. But not actually insane.
No, there was no homoerotic undertext to Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. There was scarcely any heterosexual subtext - remember the time during which he was writing - save Watson getting married, and the fact that after the Bohemian scandal, Holmes would only refer to Irene Adler as "The Woman". Given his particular interests, there is some question as to whether Holmes had any sexual interests at all - he seemed pretty ace most of the time, aside from Adler, and that may have merely been attraction to someone else as bright as he was.
As for the Uhura story, Armsman, you'd have to take that up with Nichelle - she's the one who tells it. (As well as the one about how the network embargoed her fan mail without telling her - that and a Broadway offer were apparently the impetus behind her desire to quit the show, until MLK Jr talked her into staying when she met him at a charity dinner.)
No, there was no homoerotic undertext to Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. There was scarcely any heterosexual subtext - remember the time during which he was writing - save Watson getting married, and the fact that after the Bohemian scandal, Holmes would only refer to Irene Adler as "The Woman". Given his particular interests, there is some question as to whether Holmes had any sexual interests at all - he seemed pretty ace most of the time, aside from Adler, and that may have merely been attraction to someone else as bright as he was.
I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week.
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
To each their own. You hated it, this is your opinion and I respect that. Personally I loved Enterprise, after having watched the other 4 series within a 2 year span, memorizing most species and such. I rate it just behind DS9, so on the second place of all 5 Trek shows. But again, to each their own.
Lets just not turn this thread into another debate on which Trek is the best or the worst, because by the time we'll stop arguing about that the Sun will have gone supernova, imploded, turned into a black hole, exploded, reformed as a new star and went supernova again. And yes, in its current form, the sun won't go supernova. Just to give you an idea how far in the future I'm thinking.
Back on topic (sorry for not quoting, but I'm just too tired). I do think that the popularity and quality of Axanar did partially cause the lawsuit. Ofcourse there is the financial mismanagement, but lets be honest. If I now start a Kickstarter for Star Trek: Rahming Speed, and I somehow convince some of you to donate $10 to me each, leaving me up with a budget of say $40. What if I spent that money on a salary for myself, or to buy an USB drive I intend to use for future productions. CBS probably couldn't care less about me, because I wouldn't get much further than clay animations on my own. (I probably could actually make a pretty good Trek thing with the people I know in real life, but thats a different story). Anyway, with my clay animation and my financial mismanagement, I will have done the exact same thing Axanar did: copyright infringment for financial gain. However, since no more than 15 people would ever see my animation, I won't get sued.
So yes, the quality and popularity of Axanar definitely did have a sway. And I still believe that the potential threat they placed towards Beyond and the upcoming series was one of the reasons CBS was looking for a way to put an end to Axanar. The financial report simply was the casus belli they needed, but not the only cause.
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
I just want to voice my support of this statement, just to counter the number of people that come up with "TNG was hated by TOS fans" as if this would somehow magically change the fact that people could have a disliking for ENT. Basically everything Trek that came after or during DS9 (DS9 excluded, I like the show quite a lot despite disagreeing with some elements) was, in my opinion, terrible, bad or at best watchable with some very rare bright moments (that includes all TNG movies).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
I just want to voice my support of this statement, just to counter the number of people that come up with "TNG was hated by TOS fans" as if this would somehow magically change the fact that people could have a disliking for ENT. Basically everything Trek that came after or during DS9 (DS9 excluded, I like the show quite a lot despite disagreeing with some elements) was, in my opinion, terrible, bad or at best watchable with some very rare bright moments (that includes all TNG movies).
Which indeed is a very fair opnion you have, which I respect and respectfully disagreewith, but this thread really isn't about good or bad Trek series that finished over 10 years ago. So lets just stick on topic.
Are you talking about 'Enterprise', or the premiere episode of TNG in 1987? I ask because what you describe is how most TOS fans (myself included) saw TNG - and further, saw nothing to change that opinion until midway through it's third season (and no, I'm not being hyperbolic - saw my first TOS episode 'Elaan of Troyius ' (from its third season in 1969) at age 6 and have been watching Star Trek even since. Saw TAS and all the feature films first run and all the subsequent series first run too.)
Definitely referring to the show Enterprise. That whole group of us hated ep1 and 2 and about 1/3 never watched ep3 or later. My family and I stuck through the full s1 before abandoning it. We did wander back to watch its last season since it HAD improved. Still, the only thing GOOD about that series imo was the mirror episodes near the end.
As for TNG, pretty much everyone I knew was 'bleh' on it but willing to give it a shot... which is about 5000x more positive than their opinions of Ent. Yes I was part of a large group, we were in a large club, part of a national organization of trek clubs :P Each region had its own "ship" which was local area's club. Ours was the U.S.S. Pegasus, we were really stoked about a show with a ship of that name, then it turned out to have less screen time than the Reliant :P lol Why do I mention all that? Because I'm not drawing my conclusion from a couple people or some buddies but a fairly large pile of people with vastly different interests and personalities. (Thank the gods I was too young at the time to find out about the 4 furry-trekkies)
edit:
and I did and still do hate the look of the galaxy class :P ever since that TNG ep1
It's funny, but I thought that the Enterprise pilot (despite it's flaws) wasn't half bad. And the show, throughout it's run, had a handful of actually good episodes. Unfortunately it wasn't enough to save it from the craptastic mess that Berman and Braga turned it into.
The Next Generation got an eleventh hour reprieve in Season Three. Mostly because Roddenberry's role was greatly diminished by that time.
I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week.
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
To each their own. You hated it, this is your opinion and I respect that. Personally I loved Enterprise, after having watched the other 4 series within a 2 year span, memorizing most species and such. I rate it just behind DS9, so on the second place of all 5 Trek shows. But again, to each their own.
Lets just not turn this thread into another debate on which Trek is the best or the worst, because by the time we'll stop arguing about that the Sun will have gone supernova, imploded, turned into a black hole, exploded, reformed as a new star and went supernova again. And yes, in its current form, the sun won't go supernova. Just to give you an idea how far in the future I'm thinking.
Back on topic (sorry for not quoting, but I'm just too tired). I do think that the popularity and quality of Axanar did partially cause the lawsuit. Ofcourse there is the financial mismanagement, but lets be honest. If I now start a Kickstarter for Star Trek: Rahming Speed, and I somehow convince some of you to donate $10 to me each, leaving me up with a budget of say $40. What if I spent that money on a salary for myself, or to buy an USB drive I intend to use for future productions. CBS probably couldn't care less about me, because I wouldn't get much further than clay animations on my own. (I probably could actually make a pretty good Trek thing with the people I know in real life, but thats a different story). Anyway, with my clay animation and my financial mismanagement, I will have done the exact same thing Axanar did: copyright infringment for financial gain. However, since no more than 15 people would ever see my animation, I won't get sued.
So yes, the quality and popularity of Axanar definitely did have a sway. And I still believe that the potential threat they placed towards Beyond and the upcoming series was one of the reasons CBS was looking for a way to put an end to Axanar. The financial report simply was the casus belli they needed, but not the only cause.
"Peters said he and his team met with CBS last week but the network didn’t offer any specific guidelines concerning what his crew can and cannot do — the network simply told him that they can’t make money off the project."
Yes the popularity and quality may have got them noticed but CBS told them in a meeting...face to face...not to make a profit. They broke the one rule they had.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
While the filmmakers of “Star Trek: Axanar” appear confident that they’re operating in safe copyright territory, attorney Lincoln Bandlow, a partner at Fox Rothschild, LLP, insists otherwise.
“If it’s based on characters or other protectable elements of the ‘Star Trek’ work, then what they are doing is a derivative work and that’s a copyright infringement that is highly unlikely to be a protected fair use,” he said.
He added: “Just because there are a lot of these fan versions being done doesn’t make it legal.”
Bandlow urged Peters to tread carefully. “If you have permission from a copyright holder to do a fan-made film, there’s no problem,” said Bandlow. “But it’s real risky to be relying on an alleged oral licensing agreement to do such a work.
“An argument that this kind of use is not an infringement at all because no profit will be made is just flat wrong,” he continued. “That’s not the law … You will be depriving the copyright owners of a licensing fee where you have to presume there is a heavy licensing history … So arguing that they won’t make money off of it, that’s not going to be a slam dunk.”
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
While the filmmakers of “Star Trek: Axanar” appear confident that they’re operating in safe copyright territory, attorney Lincoln Bandlow, a partner at Fox Rothschild, LLP, insists otherwise.
“If it’s based on characters or other protectable elements of the ‘Star Trek’ work, then what they are doing is a derivative work and that’s a copyright infringement that is highly unlikely to be a protected fair use,” he said.
He added: “Just because there are a lot of these fan versions being done doesn’t make it legal.”
Bandlow urged Peters to tread carefully. “If you have permission from a copyright holder to do a fan-made film, there’s no problem,” said Bandlow. “But it’s real risky to be relying on an alleged oral licensing agreement to do such a work.
“An argument that this kind of use is not an infringement at all because no profit will be made is just flat wrong,” he continued. “That’s not the law … You will be depriving the copyright owners of a licensing fee where you have to presume there is a heavy licensing history … So arguing that they won’t make money off of it, that’s not going to be a slam dunk.”
Also, the article you link to was from August 2015. many things have changed since then, and given the veracity of many of Mr. Peter's statements which often contradict each other - who knows what (or even if) CBS said to the group. Since August, CBS has announce a new TV series, Axanar has continued crowdfunding and have expanded their merchandising efforts; and Tony Todd has left the production (and has had some critical comments about the project) - something which Mr. peters hasn't really openly disclosed on either the main Axanar page, nor Indegogo, etc. <--- That in itself seems very telling that for all their bluster about being open and forthcoming to Backers - it seems they're only forthcoming about POSITIVE aspects and try to downplay any valid negative aspect, comment or concern; and engage in blatant censorship thinking anyone who still isn't towing the 'Axanar is the greatest Star Trek project in 20 years...' line is a 'hater' and must not have backed.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I admit i was confused when i first heard bout CBS going after Axanar when they let other fan projects exist, Renegades being a prime example though that was made as a pilot pitch. The prelude to Axanar did invest my interest in the project a great deal, though learning the high probability mr peters embezzled funds does not surprise me. This beyond anything else is likely why CBS and Paramount are going after him, rather than conspiracy theories they don't like the more positive press its getting from trek fans than beyond, they wouldn't care. As they know they would be getting more money from beyond anyway. He broke the golden rule of the good will agreement trek fan films operate under. I just hope this doesn't negatively impact other fan based projects in the future
What a monumentally stupid thing to do, though, especially from CBS who has been content with sitting on their hands while the brand whistle's in the wind....
I think it's because there are two official Star Trek properties coming out. We have the movie and the new TV show.
Agreed, and to be honest I expected such stupidity the closer we get to the new series.
I have mentioned this before, but i would not put it past CBS to shut down STO in favour of their new baby, especially if it becomes popular...
They wouldn't do that, to do that they would have to pull all reruns, as STO is nothing more than a continuation of the Trek Before so to speak...
Plussss. $$$$$$ Talks as long as STO makes them money in what ever way possible it will remain, When STO is a loss making game and starts to tarnish the brand CBS will be like erm bye bye....
not true they would scrap this one and have another star trek mmo made at some point.its been almost 50 year and the brand still has ton of life in it
I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week.
Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.
Are you talking about 'Enterprise', or the premiere episode of TNG in 1987? I ask because what you describe is how most TOS fans (myself included) saw TNG - and further, saw nothing to change that opinion until midway through it's third season (and no, I'm not being hyperbolic - saw my first TOS episode 'Elaan of Troyius ' (from its third season in 1969) at age 6 and have been watching Star Trek even since. Saw TAS and all the feature films first run and all the subsequent series first run too.)
BTW - ENT was no better of worse with regard to 're-writing canon' than any of the other Star Trek films or series. The notion that 'Star Trek' was some cohesive 'future history' that sprang fully formed from the mind of Gene Roddenberry is ridiculous. So is the claim that his whole purpose in making Star Trek was to 'enlighten'. He made Star Trek to make a living and for the money. Also, he wasn't very good at 'world building' - as if he had his way 'Spock' was originally going to be a Martian - until many people informed him that NASA had near conclusive evidence (in 1964) there was no intelligent life on Mars. Most of the popular and 'visionary' elements that Star Trek fans attributed to GR today (because GR loved taking credit for everything Star Trek as the years passed); was added by Gene L. Coon. Anyone who really bothered to look into GR's history with Hollywood and Star Trek in particular would know that he was FAR from the altruistic humanist/defender of woman's rights, etc.
In fact TOS canon was so inconsistent fans came up with a term when discussing minutiae of the show:
YATI = "Yet Another Trek Inconsistency" (no, I'm not kidding.)
Hell, if GR were alive today and looking at STO - his main comment about the game in general would most likely be: "Hey, what's my cut? (of the profits)
As a fan since 1969 my ranking of the Star Trek franchise TV series (from best to worst):
1) TOS
2) ENT
3) DS9
4) TAS
5) TNG
.
.
.
.
.
.
*) VOY (Started with a great premise that was all but abandoned by its third episode - and was (IMO) so poorly and inconsistently written that its the only Star Trek series I have not watched in its entirety - and stopped watching regularly after the episode "The 37's" aired as I couldn't buy that NONE of the Maqui (or even a few Fed crewmembers) would want to stay behind on what was essentially an Earth colony; especially when they were facing a 70 year trip; or if they did manage to get back in a few years, jail time. Remember the Maqui were former Federation members who didn't hold with Federation ideals and refused to adhere to Federation policy, etc.) That this series is liked by a number of Star trek fans confounds me. VMMY of course and just goes to show that people watch Star Trek for varying reasons.
As for the Feature films:
1) STII:TWoK/ST:ID (yes - Star Trek: Into Darkness) <-- Tie depending on my mood.
2) ST2009
3) ST:TMP
4)STIV:TVH
5)STIII:TSFS
6)ST:FC (IMO - the only Next Generation feature film worth watching)
7)STVI:TUC
8)ST:NEM
9)ST:GEN
10)ST:INS
11)STV:TFF (Yes, I'm a huge fan of TOS and its cast, but this film was absolute TRIBBLE front to back)
In the end, I guess my point is: There is no ONE TRUE definition of what 'Star Trek' is or what makes 'Good Trek'. If you ask 100 Star Trek fans what Star Trek 'is'?...you'll get 110 different answers. There is no 'true' Star Trek.
And again as I've said, I backed Axanar and wanted to see the final product (and still would). That said, I understand completely why CBS/Paramount initiated the lawsuit they did because in the end, Axanar IS making money for various members of the production (and no I'm not talking the SAG and other Union production members who must be paid scale); and the evidence is there that they did intend to use backer monies (and were in the process of doing so) to create their own 'for profit' studio to produce/rent out to 'legitimate' projects for profit. I also find it interesting how many people claim Axanar is 'what the fans want' when so far, all they've produced of the actual film they ultimately want to make is a 3 minute clip of the 'Ambassador Soval' character talking to an aide on Vulcan. Can so many judge the overall quality of any film (or the ultimate execution of the full story) based on a 3 minute clip? If so, wow, I didn't know Star Trek had such a clairvoyant fan base.
i am kind of shocked that you didn't like tng i am from the generation that grew up and loved tng.but i guess this is kind of like the war between whos the better captain picard or kirk
edit:
and I did and still do hate the look of the galaxy class :P ever since that TNG ep1
My god! Something we can both agree on!
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Has there been anything official from Paramount & CBS stating that money for Axanar was lining someone's pockets instead of the free nature of fanworks?
Has there been anything official from Paramount & CBS stating that money for Axanar was lining someone's pockets instead of the free nature of fanworks?
Neither corporate entity will be making any public statements regarding this matter until they appear in court. That might tend to prejudice the proceedings, after all - and one can never be certain it'll be the right prejudice. (That's another mistake Peters is making; he should just shut up and let his attorney handle this until after the suit is resolved, one way or another. Once legal papers are filed, it's too late to get in front of things and handle PR.)
edit:
and I did and still do hate the look of the galaxy class :P ever since that TNG ep1
My god! Something we can both agree on!
I too am not a fan of TNG. Growing up on TOS...Kirk is my Captain. The Galaxy Class is one of my main points against the series. I don't like the look of the ship...inside and out. The other thing is the insanity that their are families with children onboard...as if someone at Star Fleet somehow forgot that exploring the galaxy is dangerous. I am currently marathoning TNG and the early seasons are a chore to get through.
However I think it's on of the better series for character development. The characters in "Encounter at Farpoint" are not the same at the end of the series and not even TOS can claim that...though maybe they could if they ran 7 seasons.
I do like the ENT - E though.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
OK Before I start with my own POV on all this. I have to say I DIDN'T read this entire thread. Which is standing at 11+ pages long at the time of this posting. So some of these points might have already been hashed out.
Does CBS/Paramount have the right to protect their IP AKA Star Trek ?? YES It does.
Does CBS/Paramount HAVE to let any Fan FICTION or PRODUCTION be made without their official OK ?? No they Don't
Do we as fans of Star Trek have any rights to write a Fan Fiction and post it online or make a HOMEMADE FAN FILM or WEB SERIES ??? No we don't
Should CBS/Paramount shut down all Fan Productions. Which includes these Fan Films and Web Series (Renegades, Continues, New Voyages and Continuning Missions). This also includes any future Fan Audio Drama Productions. YES THEY SHOULD
Until CBS/Paramount can setup some type of submission review board and a set of submission rules for HOMEMADE, Fan Club and or Fan Crowd Funded project can be put in place. With also clear transparcency as to why a submission was rejected.
Their might be a set of rules. If so I haven't hear or seen anything about it.
I really hate to say this. But CBS/Paramount are in a catch 22 setup. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they chose to be damned by a majority of Star Trek Fans. Because they are protecting their LEGAL RIGHTs to all things STAR TREK.
It's their sandbox we are playing in. They have every right to tell us to stop what we are doing and get out and if we don't stop and get out we as fans better be prepared to pay the cost. For those who don't follow the rules.
NOW, all that said and done.
What would I do IF I was in charge or the go to guy in charge The Star Trek Legacy for CBS/Paramount.
As stated before. Setup a submissions review board and have total transpancey as to the review process and a stated reason was a certain project was rejected.
If a project was approved. Take AXANAR for example. I would also appoint a Lasion officer as a go between CBS/Paramount and the production group. Just like they did here with STO. I think. By the way who is the CBS/Paramount Lasion officer who works with cryptic ??
Comments
I don't. I think Axanar started to get too good. It got too close to the actual ST TV series quality. It seemed much better than a fan film.
The show had its downfalls yes! did the show suck NO! its like the whole JAr JAr thing, some hate it some like it....
ooooh its Marmite.......
Yep, and no amount of spin that paints Peters as the second coming of Gene Roddenberry won't change a thing. The law is the law.
Are you talking about 'Enterprise', or the premiere episode of TNG in 1987? I ask because what you describe is how most TOS fans (myself included) saw TNG - and further, saw nothing to change that opinion until midway through it's third season (and no, I'm not being hyperbolic - saw my first TOS episode 'Elaan of Troyius ' (from its third season in 1969) at age 6 and have been watching Star Trek even since. Saw TAS and all the feature films first run and all the subsequent series first run too.)
BTW - ENT was no better of worse with regard to 're-writing canon' than any of the other Star Trek films or series. The notion that 'Star Trek' was some cohesive 'future history' that sprang fully formed from the mind of Gene Roddenberry is ridiculous. So is the claim that his whole purpose in making Star Trek was to 'enlighten'. He made Star Trek to make a living and for the money. Also, he wasn't very good at 'world building' - as if he had his way 'Spock' was originally going to be a Martian - until many people informed him that NASA had near conclusive evidence (in 1964) there was no intelligent life on Mars. Most of the popular and 'visionary' elements that Star Trek fans attributed to GR today (because GR loved taking credit for everything Star Trek as the years passed); was added by Gene L. Coon. Anyone who really bothered to look into GR's history with Hollywood and Star Trek in particular would know that he was FAR from the altruistic humanist/defender of woman's rights, etc.
In fact TOS canon was so inconsistent fans came up with a term when discussing minutiae of the show:
YATI = "Yet Another Trek Inconsistency" (no, I'm not kidding.)
Hell, if GR were alive today and looking at STO - his main comment about the game in general would most likely be: "Hey, what's my cut? (of the profits)
As a fan since 1969 my ranking of the Star Trek franchise TV series (from best to worst):
1) TOS
2) ENT
3) DS9
4) TAS
5) TNG
.
.
.
.
.
.
*) VOY (Started with a great premise that was all but abandoned by its third episode - and was (IMO) so poorly and inconsistently written that its the only Star Trek series I have not watched in its entirety - and stopped watching regularly after the episode "The 37's" aired as I couldn't buy that NONE of the Maqui (or even a few Fed crewmembers) would want to stay behind on what was essentially an Earth colony; especially when they were facing a 70 year trip; or if they did manage to get back in a few years, jail time. Remember the Maqui were former Federation members who didn't hold with Federation ideals and refused to adhere to Federation policy, etc.) That this series is liked by a number of Star trek fans confounds me. VMMY of course and just goes to show that people watch Star Trek for varying reasons.
As for the Feature films:
1) STII:TWoK/ST:ID (yes - Star Trek: Into Darkness) <-- Tie depending on my mood.
2) ST2009
3) ST:TMP
4)STIV:TVH
5)STIII:TSFS
6)ST:FC (IMO - the only Next Generation feature film worth watching)
7)STVI:TUC
8)ST:NEM
9)ST:GEN
10)ST:INS
11)STV:TFF (Yes, I'm a huge fan of TOS and its cast, but this film was absolute TRIBBLE front to back)
In the end, I guess my point is: There is no ONE TRUE definition of what 'Star Trek' is or what makes 'Good Trek'. If you ask 100 Star Trek fans what Star Trek 'is'?...you'll get 110 different answers. There is no 'true' Star Trek.
And again as I've said, I backed Axanar and wanted to see the final product (and still would). That said, I understand completely why CBS/Paramount initiated the lawsuit they did because in the end, Axanar IS making money for various members of the production (and no I'm not talking the SAG and other Union production members who must be paid scale); and the evidence is there that they did intend to use backer monies (and were in the process of doing so) to create their own 'for profit' studio to produce/rent out to 'legitimate' projects for profit. I also find it interesting how many people claim Axanar is 'what the fans want' when so far, all they've produced of the actual film they ultimately want to make is a 3 minute clip of the 'Ambassador Soval' character talking to an aide on Vulcan. Can so many judge the overall quality of any film (or the ultimate execution of the full story) based on a 3 minute clip? If so, wow, I didn't know Star Trek had such a clairvoyant fan base.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
It's not technically fanfiction, but it's the same sort of process: taking an existing work and expanding on it, reshaping it, reimagining it.
And that's exactly what I want to see. That's why I've been talking at length about people making things from Trek "even if it's not something we recognize as Trek." If Trek is a good base from which to build off of, I want authors to have as much latitude to use it as they need. They can embrace it and call it Trek, or they can just borrow elements.
All over the place. Google "Purpose of copyright" and you'll see what I mean. Or just follow one of these links to University-published pages:
http://copyright101.byu.edu/module1/page3.htm
http://itle.okstate.edu/copyright/module1/page-1-03.htm
http://www.udel.edu/topics/techtalk/Issue/Current/purpose.html
If they look tacky, it's because they're old. This is hardly a new idea I'm putting out.
Or check out the website of the US Copyright Office. They don't say that the purpose is protect anyone's commercial interests, they say "...the purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society..."
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
No, that's the means. The function of copyright law is to grand all those protections, but the point is to add to the pool of material available to the community.
But if the purpose is to protect from theft, why bother having a public domain? Why go through the hassle of keeping track of what's public domain and what isn't, or using a system where people go to court to argue over whether something is public domain or not? It takes money, resources, and bureaucracy to do that. Why not just have a blanket "This belongs to the author and his heirs and no-one else can use it, ever" clause?
But why accept a musical version of Oliver Twist but not a "reboot" of it set in the modern day, which tackles modern issues? Or a new work entirely which only draws vaguely from the original (For example, Forbidden Planet is a sci-fi movie that draws from The Tempest)? Why should the story have to remain static?
See above for my rebuttal to the first part of this. As for it being used to justify plagiarism, the fact that an argument can be misused does not render the argument false.
They do have the right. It's in the law. The key is that they don't get to keep that right forever. Let them make their fortunes (or not) off their hard work, and then put it into the public domain where it benefits everybody.
And honestly, the copyright of the individual creator isn't really what I'm against. Corporate copyright like what we're dealing with here is what really gets my hackles up.
Of course. The law is the law, as mhall points out, but I'm taking this as a opportunity to make that argument that it should be changed, so that we can have things like Axanar instead of (or at least in addition to) things like JJ-Trek.
He was certainly no respecter of marital vows, but it was my understanding that Majel went into their marriage with her eyes wide open (having already been one of his conquests - as he wasn't really that impressive to look at, I can only imagine he must have had a silver tongue in person).
On the gripping hand, you're right about who should get worldbuilding credit - Coon invented the UFP, Starfleet Command, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Prime Directive, and just about everything else that could be considered a continuing development. (Roddenberry said at first that the Enterprise was from the United Earth Space Agency, and wasn't even sure she should be armed.) And Dorothy Fontana should have had a co-writing credit on about 70% of the scripts they filmed.
Majel Barrett should because remember to, GR was married when he cast and was having relations with Majel Barret; BUT NOT married top Majel Barrett. And again contrary to the story GR tells, the Network did not object to the female character of 'Number One' - they just objected to Majel Barret in the role tor two reasons:
1) She didn't have a lot of acting experience (and they didn't think she could carry a lead role on an EXPENSIVE series.)
and
2) She was the mistress (remember he was married) of the Executive Producer of (again) an EXPENSIVE series; and IF said series was a hit - what would happen (production-wise) if the lead actress and the EP of the show broke up?
Also, GR's claim that he was the instigator of the 'multi-racial' element of Star Trek (with the Network not 100% on board) has been debunked too. If you look at the first pilot Star Trek (The Cage) - you'll notice the Enterprise crew is hardly multi-racial. the crew is a carbon copy of the type of crew from the film Forbidden Planet <--- which was GR's template for Star Trek. Also, NBC already had a show with a multi-racial cast (and extras) in "I Spy" (Robert Culp and Bill Cosby as the leads).
What happened was between the time of the filming of "The Cage" there was a memo from NBC Brass asking Producers on all their shows to diversify casting because Nielson was starting to provide demographic data and advertisers realized that A LOT of minorities were watching TV in general and they wanted to appeal top that segment. (There used to be a site that linked to a photocopy of that memo, but it's gone - the closed I could find was this article that discusses the situation:
http://airlockalpha.com/9148/who-really-pushed-to-have-nichelle-nichols-on-star-trek-html
Again I too used to believe the GR stories he told and parrot them; but many people who were involved first hand started giving interviews and showing various documents that show that GR was never above embellishing something to make himself look good. The Network wasn't a bunch of Neanderthals being dragged kicking and screaming into the 'light' of GR's 'vision'. They had sound business reasons for what they were approving/not approving.
As for the rejection of "The Cage" - yes ONE of the reasons given was that someone at the Network felt it was "Too Cerebral"; KOWEVER the main reason was the COST of the pilot - and the fact the pilot ran 70 minutes (the reason for the latter was Desilu and GR hedged their bets in that IF 'Star Trek' was outright rejected - they planned to do a theatrical release of the pilot - and if you saw some of the sci fi films made in the early 1960ies - it would have done okay in the theatre if released.) The thing was, NBC (who only paid a licensing fee and didn't pony up 100% of production costs at the time); wanted proof that Star Trek was production sustainable - and could produce watchable, entertaining episodes on a 'TV budget'; so when they commissioned the second pilot, they imposed a ceiling on what could be spent to see if what GR had promised was possible week to week.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
My character Tsin'xing
As for the Uhura story, Armsman, you'd have to take that up with Nichelle - she's the one who tells it. (As well as the one about how the network embargoed her fan mail without telling her - that and a Broadway offer were apparently the impetus behind her desire to quit the show, until MLK Jr talked her into staying when she met him at a charity dinner.)
To each their own. You hated it, this is your opinion and I respect that. Personally I loved Enterprise, after having watched the other 4 series within a 2 year span, memorizing most species and such. I rate it just behind DS9, so on the second place of all 5 Trek shows. But again, to each their own.
Lets just not turn this thread into another debate on which Trek is the best or the worst, because by the time we'll stop arguing about that the Sun will have gone supernova, imploded, turned into a black hole, exploded, reformed as a new star and went supernova again. And yes, in its current form, the sun won't go supernova. Just to give you an idea how far in the future I'm thinking.
Back on topic (sorry for not quoting, but I'm just too tired). I do think that the popularity and quality of Axanar did partially cause the lawsuit. Ofcourse there is the financial mismanagement, but lets be honest. If I now start a Kickstarter for Star Trek: Rahming Speed, and I somehow convince some of you to donate $10 to me each, leaving me up with a budget of say $40. What if I spent that money on a salary for myself, or to buy an USB drive I intend to use for future productions. CBS probably couldn't care less about me, because I wouldn't get much further than clay animations on my own. (I probably could actually make a pretty good Trek thing with the people I know in real life, but thats a different story). Anyway, with my clay animation and my financial mismanagement, I will have done the exact same thing Axanar did: copyright infringment for financial gain. However, since no more than 15 people would ever see my animation, I won't get sued.
So yes, the quality and popularity of Axanar definitely did have a sway. And I still believe that the potential threat they placed towards Beyond and the upcoming series was one of the reasons CBS was looking for a way to put an end to Axanar. The financial report simply was the casus belli they needed, but not the only cause.
Join the Deltas today!
I just want to voice my support of this statement, just to counter the number of people that come up with "TNG was hated by TOS fans" as if this would somehow magically change the fact that people could have a disliking for ENT. Basically everything Trek that came after or during DS9 (DS9 excluded, I like the show quite a lot despite disagreeing with some elements) was, in my opinion, terrible, bad or at best watchable with some very rare bright moments (that includes all TNG movies).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Which indeed is a very fair opnion you have, which I respect and respectfully disagreewith, but this thread really isn't about good or bad Trek series that finished over 10 years ago. So lets just stick on topic.
Join the Deltas today!
As for TNG, pretty much everyone I knew was 'bleh' on it but willing to give it a shot... which is about 5000x more positive than their opinions of Ent. Yes I was part of a large group, we were in a large club, part of a national organization of trek clubs :P Each region had its own "ship" which was local area's club. Ours was the U.S.S. Pegasus, we were really stoked about a show with a ship of that name, then it turned out to have less screen time than the Reliant :P lol Why do I mention all that? Because I'm not drawing my conclusion from a couple people or some buddies but a fairly large pile of people with vastly different interests and personalities. (Thank the gods I was too young at the time to find out about the 4 furry-trekkies)
edit:
and I did and still do hate the look of the galaxy class :P ever since that TNG ep1
The Next Generation got an eleventh hour reprieve in Season Three. Mostly because Roddenberry's role was greatly diminished by that time.
http://www.thewrap.com/how-1-1-million-star-trek-fan-movie-has-escaped-studio-shutdown-so-far/
"Peters said he and his team met with CBS last week but the network didn’t offer any specific guidelines concerning what his crew can and cannot do — the network simply told him that they can’t make money off the project."
Yes the popularity and quality may have got them noticed but CBS told them in a meeting...face to face...not to make a profit. They broke the one rule they had.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Further info:
While the filmmakers of “Star Trek: Axanar” appear confident that they’re operating in safe copyright territory, attorney Lincoln Bandlow, a partner at Fox Rothschild, LLP, insists otherwise.
“If it’s based on characters or other protectable elements of the ‘Star Trek’ work, then what they are doing is a derivative work and that’s a copyright infringement that is highly unlikely to be a protected fair use,” he said.
He added: “Just because there are a lot of these fan versions being done doesn’t make it legal.”
Bandlow urged Peters to tread carefully. “If you have permission from a copyright holder to do a fan-made film, there’s no problem,” said Bandlow. “But it’s real risky to be relying on an alleged oral licensing agreement to do such a work.
“An argument that this kind of use is not an infringement at all because no profit will be made is just flat wrong,” he continued. “That’s not the law … You will be depriving the copyright owners of a licensing fee where you have to presume there is a heavy licensing history … So arguing that they won’t make money off of it, that’s not going to be a slam dunk.”
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
You seem to vastly overestimate the number of people who would have watched this thing.
Also, the article you link to was from August 2015. many things have changed since then, and given the veracity of many of Mr. Peter's statements which often contradict each other - who knows what (or even if) CBS said to the group. Since August, CBS has announce a new TV series, Axanar has continued crowdfunding and have expanded their merchandising efforts; and Tony Todd has left the production (and has had some critical comments about the project) - something which Mr. peters hasn't really openly disclosed on either the main Axanar page, nor Indegogo, etc. <--- That in itself seems very telling that for all their bluster about being open and forthcoming to Backers - it seems they're only forthcoming about POSITIVE aspects and try to downplay any valid negative aspect, comment or concern; and engage in blatant censorship thinking anyone who still isn't towing the 'Axanar is the greatest Star Trek project in 20 years...' line is a 'hater' and must not have backed.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
My god! Something we can both agree on!
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
see? thats the beauty of star trek! theres always SOMEthing to bring people together. LOL :P
I too am not a fan of TNG. Growing up on TOS...Kirk is my Captain. The Galaxy Class is one of my main points against the series. I don't like the look of the ship...inside and out. The other thing is the insanity that their are families with children onboard...as if someone at Star Fleet somehow forgot that exploring the galaxy is dangerous. I am currently marathoning TNG and the early seasons are a chore to get through.
However I think it's on of the better series for character development. The characters in "Encounter at Farpoint" are not the same at the end of the series and not even TOS can claim that...though maybe they could if they ran 7 seasons.
I do like the ENT - E though.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Does CBS/Paramount have the right to protect their IP AKA Star Trek ?? YES It does.
Does CBS/Paramount HAVE to let any Fan FICTION or PRODUCTION be made without their official OK ?? No they Don't
Do we as fans of Star Trek have any rights to write a Fan Fiction and post it online or make a HOMEMADE FAN FILM or WEB SERIES ??? No we don't
Should CBS/Paramount shut down all Fan Productions. Which includes these Fan Films and Web Series (Renegades, Continues, New Voyages and Continuning Missions). This also includes any future Fan Audio Drama Productions. YES THEY SHOULD
Until CBS/Paramount can setup some type of submission review board and a set of submission rules for HOMEMADE, Fan Club and or Fan Crowd Funded project can be put in place. With also clear transparcency as to why a submission was rejected.
Their might be a set of rules. If so I haven't hear or seen anything about it.
I really hate to say this. But CBS/Paramount are in a catch 22 setup. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they chose to be damned by a majority of Star Trek Fans. Because they are protecting their LEGAL RIGHTs to all things STAR TREK.
It's their sandbox we are playing in. They have every right to tell us to stop what we are doing and get out and if we don't stop and get out we as fans better be prepared to pay the cost. For those who don't follow the rules.
NOW, all that said and done.
What would I do IF I was in charge or the go to guy in charge The Star Trek Legacy for CBS/Paramount.
As stated before. Setup a submissions review board and have total transpancey as to the review process and a stated reason was a certain project was rejected.
If a project was approved. Take AXANAR for example. I would also appoint a Lasion officer as a go between CBS/Paramount and the production group. Just like they did here with STO. I think. By the way who is the CBS/Paramount Lasion officer who works with cryptic ??
http://www.axanarproductions.com/david-gerrold-on-cbs-vs-axanar-part-1/
http://www.axanarproductions.com/david-gerrold-on-cbs-vs-axanar-part-2/
http://www.axanarproductions.com/david-gerrold-on-cbs-vs-axanar-part-3/