In before the lock. 
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Been following this thread for years, prior to this I had very little exposure to fan films, this thread has introduced me to quite a few interesting fan productions !
Big thank you, and slice of pie to @jespah for the education on copyright and another for @carlos for the wonderful job he has done recording this event for prosperity.
Take care all
Big thank you, and slice of pie to @jespah for the education on copyright and another for @carlos for the wonderful job he has done recording this event for prosperity.
Take care all
This is an incredible set! Plywood covered carpet, invisible screens and keyboards and a script made of fairy dust!Good news everyone, Alec is teaching a new generation how to make a film just like Axanar.
I think that we are all in agreement here that they are learning from the very best.
"Hay kids, this is what success looks like" - Alec
Can people still delete posts from a locked thread?
Fantastic!
"Hey kids, this is a perfect example of what *not* to do!"
In before the lock!
Alec sent out another donor's update the other day. It was basically a bunch of words that said a whole lot of nothing. Apparently there's a new director of fulfillment (ha!) and a new Axanar comic that will be released in one page increments until everyone dies of boredom.
So there's that.
Alec sent out another donor's update the other day. It was basically a bunch of words that said a whole lot of nothing. Apparently there's a new director of fulfillment (ha!) and a new Axanar comic that will be released in one page increments until everyone dies of boredom.
So there's that.
That's about $1,666.67/minute. Prelude to Axanar was bout $3,780/minute. The 2014 short film "Miss Earth", written and directed by Anna Akana, was somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 per minute. So the finances work out to be cost prohibitive for a 30 minute film, which I'm sure was the idea.
They don't allow films, because they don't "give (someone) permission to do something". In fact, the Guidelines imply a prohibition, rather than granting permission. If they ever explicitly granted permission, that would probably be considered a license under the law.
It's not universally true that ANY story can be reduced to less than 30 minutes and still be good, nor is it true that anyone can write a short story or film. Poets, short story writers and novelists are not all the same thing for a reason. You will note that NO restriction of length was imposed on works of fan fiction.
Actually, I was attributing something @Steven P Bastien had said earlier to him and interpreting his subsequent comments in that context. So, no, I didn't know that. But thanks for assuming the worst.
It is a possibility that some people might consume shorter media, but it's kinda like expecting people to switch from reading novels to reading poetry or short stories. Some people might, but I think the appeal of the format has more to do with it than the convenience. After all, even in these days of trying to find more time, people find the time to binge for hours on shows from streaming services.
That said, there's definitely also a market for short content out there. Just look at YouTube.
Isn't that what the Guidelines are doing? Dictating smaller run lengths due to capitalist concerns?
I don't disagree, but I don't think any random story with subplots can be trimmed down just by eliminating subplots. Subplots, when used correctly, are a valuable tool for pacing, reinforcing elements of the A plot, and further exploring ideas from the central theme that can't be explored in the A plot alone. They get a lot of hate, but mainly for their misuse rather than their actual merit as a method of storytelling.
Wow, I was with that message right up until the very last line, which kinda implies that people who don't create shorter content are somehow uncreative. Not every challenge appeals to an artist, and not every artist is suited to a specific challenge.
Pity, you were really close to having me actually "like" one of your messages.
I think you're confusing creativity with creative space. Limitations themselves don't result in creativity. It's being challenged that results in creativity, and that could be done just as easily by having a contest, or offering the first page of a story and letting people run with it. It's a challenge that people respond to creatively, not a restriction. Creative short fan films aren't the result of CBS imposing a time limit. It's the result of people accepting the challenge of creating shorter stories. Not everyone is suited to that challenge, so the restriction excludes those people, who can be equally creative in their own right, but in different ways.
My thoughts are that it is a disservice to Trek to end this Axanar thread on such a significant number. I hate to think of anything related to the show I love (such as the number 1701) and have the possibility of the slightest thought of Axanar enter into my mind.
Last edited:
Well not when you consider the first STC episodes were budgeted at about $1000 per minute with the more expensive later episodes were around $1500 per minute.
Yes, I would agree with that. CBS has staked out the area that they want to profit in. I don't think they care about creativity or art, but only profit. I don't mean that in a bad way because they are a business, and that's what they should do.
But, I would suggest that fans, and particularly fans who want to make or watch fan films, don't need to worry about that. Start making 15 minutes short episodes and putting them on youtube. If people are creative and make good stories and execute them well, I will bet my life that Star Trek fans will catapult them to viral status. It they make crap, no one will care.
No, I'm not. I find it easy to distinguish between the two. I was just pointing out that the creative space is out there to explore. Creative space is "out-there", infinite and ubiquitous. Creativity is something that needs to be searched out within ourselves.
A separate point however - sometimes constraints do help one become creative by providing a structure to work within. I might have trouble writing a poem if I don't think of structure, but if I constrain myself to a Shakespearean love sonnet form, I might succeed in making a creative piece of art. I would suggest that by embracing the CBS constraints we might see good things come of it.
At the rate we're going, we'll be on 1702 pretty quick.
I wonder how Dilbert would handle Peters...
Of all the threads I have encountered in my travels, this was the most... human.
*bagpipes*
*bagpipes*
So?
You are the only one that thinks they don't allow fan films.
Either you don't understand or you are being willfully ignorant. No one said ANY story could be told in 30 minutes. We are saying A story can be told in any amount of time. You are free to tell any story you want, as long as it fits in the time limit. That still leaves a tremendous amount of stories you can tell. As long as you are creative.
You're welcome! But, it's more like I'm using your history here as a basis.
I'll be more explicit, people who are creative, who want to create a fan film, will find a way. Because they are creators. People who want an excuse NOT to create, have a perfect excuse in the guidelines. "It's to hard." "They limit my time!" "I can't hire professionals!"
But, again, creators create. They don't complain about limits. They either embrace the limitations. Or they move on to something else. They don't spend endless pages saying, "I would create IF ONLY..."
Pity, you were really close to having me actually "like" one of your messages.
Glad I didn't ruin my perfect track record.
That's not a universal truth. Look at the creative work that was done in the Soviet Union. Tremendous plays that had to thread the needle, or be sent to the Gulag.
A challenge... like a limitation....
I think there's a certain amount of the people making the film footing some of the bill there. Just because there's the possibility of infinity dollars of private funding doesn't make it likely in real life. Some film makers are poor and lack rich friends and family. That's not to say I don't appreciate people who invest their own money in fan films. I just don't think it's fair to EXPECT that sort of thing.
But people who choose a particular limitation are a self-selecting group. The same restriction does not inspire the same amount of creativity in all people, even equally creative ones, and a restriction should not be seen as a litmus test for how creative you are. More restrictions can result in works that are more creative by those who choose to embrace the restriction, but it doesn't result in a larger number of creative works in general, nor are the works it excludes guaranteed to be less creative.
You're arguing semantics, knowing full well that CBS never actually grants permission.
It has nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with the style of creativity that suits a person. Not everyone has a talent for poetry, but that doesn't make them less creative because they write prose.
Bullsh*t! A lot of creative people simply do something else. The fact that they use their creativity on something other that Star Trek fan films does not make them less creative or somehow lazy.
What you're ignoring is all the people that ended up in the Gulag. Serves them right for their lack of creativity, right?
People choose challenges. Limitations only exclude people.
Last edited:
I can't argue with any of that. I'm sure the restrictions inspire some and discourage others. I would never judge someone (make a litmus test) for someone based on which sandbox they choose to play in. I'll judge the final work and either like it or not like it. And, some works that would have been made, will now not be made. Still, others that would not have been made might now be made. It's akin to diverting a river. The water has to go somewhere.
Ha, this thread will never end...
- Status