Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Abrams Says Paramount Will Drop Star Trek/Axenar Lawsuit (gizmodo.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the live-long-and-prosper dept.

An anonymous reader writes:At a fan event Friday for the upcoming Star Trek movie, producer J. J. Abrams said Paramount Pictures' lawsuit against Axanar Productions was "going away." Director Justin Lin had been outraged by the lawsuit against the crowdfunded fan Star Trek film, and when he'd started discussing the situation with Abrams, the two "realized this was not an appropriate way to deal with the fans. The fans should be celebrating this thing. Fans of Star Trek are part of this world. So he went to the studio and pushed them to stop this lawsuit and now, within the next few weeks, it will be announced this is going away, and that fans would be able to continue working on their project."
In a statement, Axanar said they still "want to make sure we go through all the proper steps to make sure all matters are settled with CBS and Paramount..." adding "There is still a lot of work to do, but receiving this kind of public support helps immensely."

82 comments

  1. Sanity reigns??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow. Just - wow.

    1. Re:Sanity reigns??? by irving47 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's wait and see.... I am slightly optimistic and a tiny bit relieved... Unfortunately, even if it's true, it doesn't mean the "full" version is going to get made.

      But we're talking about companies that allowed film rights to go to one, and tv rights to another.... For the same franchise that had been under the same roof for 30+ years.... Sanity is not the first word I'd use for either of them.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:Sanity reigns??? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It looks bad, straight off the get go. Jar Jar A can not afford any worse of a reputation with sci fi fans, his dumbed down (for us not for him, I really think he is doing the smartest possible off which he is capable) content, is really annoying those for whom the science and story is the most important part of science fiction and not empty action scenes which suit the cheetos crowd. The star trek series teaser is pretty bad, wrong music, really wrong voice for the narrator, all cheetos action and no science, all indicates Saturday afternoon cartoon fare shown on a week night. The law suit was doing even more damage and reality is that content in the fan made pick is more science and story and does not really compete with Jar Jar's which is targeted at a completely different audience, all science 'from the gut' action and you just know they will being tossing more Christianity into star trek to appeal to their target audience.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Sanity reigns??? by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      It looks bad, straight off the get go. Jar Jar A can not afford any worse of a reputation with sci fi fans, his dumbed down (for us not for him, I really think he is doing the smartest possible off which he is capable) content, is really annoying those for whom the science and story is the most important part of science fiction and not empty action scenes which suit the cheetos crowd. The star trek series teaser is pretty bad, wrong music, really wrong voice for the narrator, all cheetos action and no science, all indicates Saturday afternoon cartoon fare shown on a week night. The law suit was doing even more damage and reality is that content in the fan made pick is more science and story and does not really compete with Jar Jar's which is targeted at a completely different audience, all science 'from the gut' action and you just know they will being tossing more Christianity into star trek to appeal to their target audience.

      Science is important? Where is the real science in a jefferies tube or a tachyon beam or dilithium? While I prefer the older stuff to Abrams, he hasn't done terrible with the story. It is fair to good, which is what many of the old shows and movies are with some exceptions (Amok TIme, Wrath of Kahn, City on the Edge of Forever).

      And please, tell me where he is shoving Christianity in?

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Sanity reigns??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And please, tell me where he is shoving Christianity in?

      No kidding right. Axe to Grind Alert right there. So sick of these self-loathing, yet strangely, self-entitled chimps who hate themselves and their Daddy and inject that into everything. (And JJ is Jewish by the way.)

    5. Re:Sanity reigns??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and you just know they will being tossing more Christianity into star trek to appeal to their target audience.

      You mean like this ?

    6. Re:Sanity reigns??? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Where is the real science in a jefferies tube

      Wait, seriously? You don't think that spaceships will have crawlways for access to engineering spaces?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Sanity reigns??? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out this word you used. It sounds like a tightly-knit troupe of fire dancers with a gay demeanor. Am I close?

      I doubt they'll shut up any sooner than the rest of us, though. Seriously.

    8. Re:Sanity reigns??? by wbr1 · · Score: 0

      Nice selectivity there. My point was that it is -fiction-, but then again many of the basement dwelling neckbeards and libertarian cuckoos here have a hard time recognizing that fact.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    9. Re:Sanity reigns??? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nice selectivity there. My point was that it is -fiction-, but then again many of the basement dwelling neckbeards and libertarian cuckoos here have a hard time recognizing that fact.

      It's not an interesting point for a variety of reasons, perhaps most notably that some (though clearly not all) Trek has been based on the science of its day. Obviously it's a mixture of science and fantasy at "best", but Trek at its best does actually have scientific content.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Sanity reigns??? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Jar Jar's take on science is just straight up juvenile, like red matter (seriously the best he can come up with), or the silliness with a weapon sucking up the power of a sun, or a expelled cadet as commander of the fleet flagship, just dumb stuff, written by a child. Jar Jars work just comes off exactly like a Saturday afternoon cartoons, that same rushed science absent feel, all science fantasy and no science fiction (they had an excuse limited budgets, weekly episodes and children with a very limited understanding of science). That how all his work comes off unless he is working with more skilled story tellers, pretty much shows he is doing the best he is capable of, as for that religion bit, the comment was will and not has, yes I expect him to go there as well, sort of the lame simple plot thing to throw in.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re: Sanity reigns??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a massive faggot.

      Seriously. Shut the fuck up.

      That's about the mental level I would expect from a NuTrek fanboy.

  2. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paramount has always been rather "nice" about independent Trek projects, it's good to see them back on track.

    1. Re:Good by meerling · · Score: 1

      Except of course, how much did defending themselves for something they'd already gotten permission for eat into their budget to make Axenar?

  3. Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by davmoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can understand why Paramount and CBS are nervous about Axanar. Having seen the trailers for "Star Trek: Beyond" and the short "Prelude To Axanar", I think that Axanar is going to be a hell of a lot better than Beyond. And Axanar looks like Trek. Beyond looks more like "Star Trek: Fast and Furious In Spaaaaace!!!!"

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      CBS has a new Star Trek TV series in the works. Based on the new trailer (see below), Axanar looks a lot better in comparison.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpPweAooeE

    2. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, Axanar looks like Wing Commander 3+ FMV to me.

    3. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then guess what? You hire those guys and let them produce the next movie or tv show. Don't throw away good talent.

    4. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The second trailer for "Star Trek: Beyond" came out today and it is far, far less horrid than the first.

    5. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Holy God. I had been ignoring the Axanar news until I read your comment. Then I looked for it on YouTube and saw the faux-documentary about the lead-up to Axanar. That was better than anything Trek has ever produced, and yet it did still look like Trek. It wasn't cheesy or self-absorbed in fan-ishness. My only complaint is that I had a hard time believing that the Klingon commander would sit down for an interview; other than that, it was gorgeous and good.

      Thanks, dude. You made my evening.

    6. Re: Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! I am excited to see Axanar. I will not be watching Beyond.

      Paramount should just drop Behond and work a deal to "buy out" Axanar in some way, put its resources behind it and get it into theaters. It would be a huge hit.

    7. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by malditaenvidia · · Score: 2

      "Beyond" what?

    8. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I saw it looked like Axanar is a bunch of talking head shots with zero crew, no real sets, and an astonishing marriage between making what they have look impressive while actually having nothing to look at. It's easy (very easy) to mock a new Star Trek that boldly goes mostly where the existing franchise has gone before, but the fan films seem to be... well, fan films. Paramount/CBS really don't have any reason to be nervous beyond confusion in the marketplace, especially given the lack of promotion for the new film. Fan films looking like they have more of a budget could be a cause for concern too, especially if they incorporate (and therefore weaken) the Trek trademarks.

      I appreciate fan films as a form of free speech goes, because it is a shame that much of our existing folklore is completely owned by a few big media companies. But I have to resent anyone saying that a fan film is just as good/better than a feature, at least from a purely technical and craftsman perspective. They can make some cute things, sure. Troops had a lot of impact thanks to when it was released and that it was short & funny. The whole prelude thing is clever and they did a great job dressing up a zero-budget talking head thing with nice CG and familiar actors, but there would be an open revolt if this is the quality of the upcoming "All Access" Star Trek product. Good for a fan film isn't necessarily good.

    9. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kirk makes out with a chick who looks like a zebra, ho hum.

      Trek used to be a show about ethics and the prime directive where they'd solve a mystery of the week, overcome a paradox of time travel or Wesley would be sentenced to death.

      Now it seems all about the explosions and space warfare.

    10. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trek used to be a show where Janeway and Paris turned into newts and made babies.

    11. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      From what I saw it looked like Axanar is a bunch of talking head shots with zero crew, no real sets, and an astonishing marriage between making what they have look impressive while actually having nothing to look at.

      That's actually pretty good for, so far, having nothing to look at.

      It's easy (very easy) to mock a new Star Trek that boldly goes mostly where the existing franchise has gone before,

      Especially when it's going to go places it's gone recently.

      but the fan films seem to be... well, fan films.

      And yet still better than anything official in ages.

      Paramount/CBS really don't have any reason to be nervous beyond confusion in the marketplace,

      That's not a problem anyway, because the existence of any quality Trek content increases the value of all Trek content.

      The whole prelude thing is clever and they did a great job dressing up a zero-budget talking head thing with nice CG and familiar actors, but there would be an open revolt if this is the quality of the upcoming "All Access" Star Trek product.

      You just said the quality was good, and now you're complaining about the quality?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by mccalli · · Score: 1

      That was the increasingly preachy-and-tedious new stuff. The original was a good mix of thought and action.

    13. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beyond Star Trek: It's now a Star Wars clone.

    14. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they aren't nervous.

      the whole issue stemmed by axanar using crowdsourced funds to pay the creators.

    15. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      CBS has a new Star Trek TV series in the works. Based on the new trailer (see below), Axanar looks a lot better in comparison.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpPweAooeE

      Spinning off the episodes in Enterprise where they went through the Tholian Web into an alternate universe were the Federation was evil and the Klingons good guys would have been an interesting series. Star Trek:Renegades had potential as well.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    16. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infinity?

    17. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by GNious · · Score: 1

      That was the increasingly preachy-and-tedious new stuff. The original was a good mix of thought and action.

      From what I've seen, the Jar-Jar trek movies have been a horrid mix of action and, uhm ... something ...

    18. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      Spinning off the episodes in Enterprise where they went through the Tholian Web into an alternate universe were the Federation was evil and the Klingons good guys would have been an interesting series. Star Trek:Renegades had potential as well.

      Yeah, I had a love-hate relationship with Enterprise. Mostly with that dumb-ass Captain Scott Bakula, and that fucking dog, gawd. (Thanks for killing the franchise Scott! Kidding, sort of.) So much lost potential with Enterprise. With a different and better actor in the role of captain, it could have been much better. They finally got T'Pol right in look and behavior and then turned her into a freaking Emo. Sigh. On and on....

      The Delphic Expanse was a goldmine of potential stories and they squandered it. Did I mention Bakula and his fucking dog were dumb-assess? Anyway...

    19. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by JustBoo · · Score: 0

      Trek used to be a show where Janeway and Paris turned into newts and made babies.

      Janeway was a complete disaster. Only Scott Bakula and his fucking dog were worse. The only way to save Janeway and the idiot producers who chose her was to have a Dues Ex Machina of the Week to save her, and the writers, from their terrible decisions.

    20. Re: Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The original was Starfleet officers reminding each other of stuff that they should have learned at the academy. Just the other day they showed the one with the planet killer and they said that the doctor would have to assess the commodore and then the doctor acted as if he was powerless to tell the commodore to go to sick bay to get evaluated. I was like, if the doctor is powerless then the rule lacks teeth. Then the captain orders Spock to relieve the commodore, and instead of making a big deal about mutiny and having or trying to have security escort Spock to the brig, he moves aside and lets Spock take command.

    21. Re: Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Axenar is that there were a few rules to making fan videos, and they broke the big ones.
      First: You can't be a professional studio. Axenar's staff keep telling everybody they are professionals.
      Second: You can't make money on it. Axenar is taking in money and paying wages.

      Other projects have a very good relationship with Paramount, and the general opinion is that Axenar brought the suit on themselves. They get no sympathy after all the times they were told they were breaking the rules.

    22. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trek used to be a show about ethics and the prime directive where they'd solve a mystery of the week, overcome a paradox of time travel or Wesley would be sentenced to death.

      Now it seems all about the explosions and space warfare.

      Oblig. John Campbell: http://i.imgur.com/Rvgpn7T.png

      Star Trek used to be Sesame Street in space for the autistic. The explosions and space warfare are an improvement.

    23. Re:Of course Paramount and CBS are nervous by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      That trailer tells us absolutely nothing about what the new series will be like. It shows off some special effects and the new logo, and that's it. I'm waiting for the next trailer before I'll even think about offering an opinion on the series.

  4. Axanar by gavron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The company is Axanar Productions: http://www.axanarproductions.c...

    The movie is Prelude to Axanar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    There's no "e" in Axanar, unless the E is for the missing slashdot editor who approved it without bothering to read.

    E

    1. Re:Axanar by NormAtHome · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is Slashdot remember, the day that everything is spelled right and the grammar is all correct will be the internet apocalypse

    2. Re:Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're linking to gizmodo.

      Why would you expect editorial quality with that as their first step?

    3. Re:Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True that - I got so pissed off with the appaling quality of the writing at Gizmodo, I had to stop going there.

      And I am still on Slashdot, so that's saying something.

    4. Re: Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking blithering moron. You can't even use a semicolon or a comma correctly.

    5. Re:Axanar by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Prelude to Axanar is the short film that they released as a preview of the feature-length film that they are working on, with the current working title Axanar.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your'e dyslexic and your grammar dresses you funny...

    7. Re:Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      such a pedantic fuck.

      and you're still not an editor?

    8. Re: Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your modifiers right. It's "blithering fucking moron".

    9. Re: Axanar by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

      You want to step outside and say that to my face coward

    10. Re:Axanar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      false flag - he's trying to pretend he isn't the guy who approved it

    11. Re: Axanar by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      You want to step outside and say that to my face coward

      Let's watch. The hatch to the void of outer space is that way. Push the button.

  5. fair use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't commercial, it didn't break copyright law, it would have been unsuccessful

    1. Re:fair use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody needs to learn what fair use means. Not being commercial does not mean fair use.

  6. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought nothing was worse than Abrams Trek (Drek) but now I got to see a shitty modern-style documentary that was as riveting as snot drying.

  7. It's A Religion. Kinda Cult-Like Even. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    No suey suey.

  8. Re:Disable Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, seems to have disappeared a few weeks ago. Shame.

  9. lawsuit isn't dropped until the lawsuit is dropped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The lawsuit isn't dropped, until the lawsuit is dropped. A director and a producer are saying the lawsuit is dropped because of their "outrage", but the fact of the matter is they really have no control over the lawsuit. Sounds like they are just trying to get the fans on their side and if the big corps don't do what they want then "they're the bad guys" while "we're the good guys". But the big corps are used to being the bad guys, so really no telling if this will work. I also don't really believe J.J. Abrams on caring about star trek. In a interview he gave after the first star trek movie (he was involved with), he admitted to never liking star trek growing up and not having any interest in it, which makes sense given the inaccuracies in the new star trek movies.

  10. Re:lawsuit isn't dropped until the lawsuit is drop by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    But, Abrams like money and favorable publicity. So, this probably will happen or he'll look like a fool.

  11. Fans need to understand the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a core element of IP law that a company that holds trademarks must defend those trademarks. Failure to do so becomes legal evidence against the validity of the exclusive use of those trademarks and can lead to their loss.

    As a result, a company like Paramount, with a valid trademark on a valuable property like the Star Trek franchise has no choice but to sue people who try to use the name, characters, etc in any other commercial endeavor. If they fail to sue, then eventually Fox, Sony, and the rest could all start making Star Trek flicks and merchandise.

    If Paramount does indeed stop this current lawsuit, it will probably not be a simple dropping of the suit but rather some sort of licensing agreement (a legal document) that costs the fans little or nothing but has them acknowledge that Paramount is the legal owner of the IP. Paramount is not some big nasty bad guy here, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to defend the value of the company's assets and are in a position where that, by law, requires them to sue. Had the fan film people kept a lower profile, Paramount probably could have credibly ignored them and said to the court in some future IP case "we were aware of THIS one but not that other one". This case however simply became too big for the corporate lawyers to ignore.

    1. Re:Fans need to understand the problem by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It's a core element of IP law that a company that holds trademarks must defend those trademarks. Failure to do so becomes legal evidence against the validity of the exclusive use of those trademarks and can lead to their loss.

      You're forgetting they can license the trademark to fans under a variety of conditions. Protecting trademarks can be as simple as licensing individuals using them.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Fans need to understand the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a core element of IP law that a company that holds trademarks must defend those trademarks. Failure to do so becomes legal evidence against the validity of the exclusive use of those trademarks and can lead to their loss.

      This 'core element' is actually highly problematic, from a legal ethics perspective. The right to ethical practice of law arises under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by" the people, and as the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land, it supersedes IP law. Under this right, laws or precedents or legal practices that have even the appearance of ethical conflict of interest (not just with respect to individual lawyers, but also with respect to the legal profession as a class or group in society) are invalid.

      Given how many legal professionals are involving in writing laws, upholding laws, enforcing laws, and so forth, nothing else would be even remotely rational.

      As trademark law effectively creates a substantial ongoing long term demand for the services of lawyers (to send cease-and-desist notices, and to handle all the other matters related to how this law is implemented) this implementation creates artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.

      A sensible, well-crafted, general-purpose law on fraud (one that allows fan productions with a few reasonable limitations) would cover most of the situations where both A) a business has a legitimate and genuine need to keep competitors from misrepresenting its products, and b) responding to this need is in the long term interest of the public (which is not the same as being in the interests of the legal profession). Beyond that, freedom of speech and the press should apply.

      Hence we have the appearance of ethical conflict of interest, placing trademark law firmly on the wrong side of the Bill of Rights. In short, Congress screwed up in writing trademark law in the form it currently has, and all the lawyers involved in using and upholding that law have been ignoring the ethics problems in order to make money: an ethical legal profession would have fixed things long ago.

      Given that the US legal profession is actively involved in political lobbying, and the selection of judges, it should be no surprise that trademark law as implemented fails the test of legal ethics. A legal ethics problem affects many areas of US law, not just trademark law or even just IP law.

      Nobody but an unethical lawyer wants to live in a land "of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer", and the Bill of Rights, as written, protects against this (though it's not always easy to get the lawyers to act accordingly).

  12. And that folks, is why there was a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You just nailed the entire reason for the lawsuit.

    Everyone knows the property is being trashed.

    No Trek fans are genuinely excited about Beyond. It looks like gatbage.

    And here comes a fan film that cost next to nothing and it's actually awesome. It's true Star Trek to its core. No cheesy stunts. No action heroes. No "genius" twenty-somethings who look like models. No stupid banter in the face of imminent death.

    Just narrative and character.

    Paramount should be scared. They hired a formulaic hack to repackage Star Trek for the action-movie crowd and it's wearing thin on the fans.

    1. Re:And that folks, is why there was a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No Trek fans are genuinely excited about Beyond. It looks like gatbage.

      Well, guess what: they don't care about Trek fans. It's a tiny market that doesn't matter to them, they want the rest of the audience. They're willing to turn Star Trek into an action series, as long as regular people not into Star Trek go and see their movie. The Trekkie market is minuscule in comparison to what a multi-hundred million dollar movie needs to make a profit.

    2. Re:And that folks, is why there was a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Trek fans are an irrelevant slice of the market, and trying to appeal to them is what made the franchise horribly unprofitable. Today no letter campaign would resurrect the original show in any form, and it would be better that way. The whole point of the reboot was to throw into the trash decades of embarassing baggage and start fresh in order to be cool and relevant. It worked. Trek fans found their influence completely evaporated overnight and this threw them into a fit of funny nerd rage that elicited more than a laugh on internet boards. Now defeated and humiliated, the trekkies can only fling shit about while desperately clinging to the old crappy series. It's as sad as old BSG fans railing about the new BSG and then being laughed off the stage as it became THE most successful SF franchise in a long time. Go away, trekkies. Throw your Spock ears into a fire. It's over. The Cool Kids have taken over.

    3. Re:And that folks, is why there was a lawsuit by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Trek fans are an irrelevant slice of the market, and trying to appeal to them is what made the franchise horribly unprofitable.

      Excuse me? When did Paramount or CBS try to appeal to Trek fans, past the first couple of movies? DS9, maybe? Other than that they've aimed straight at schlock central, nonstop.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:And that folks, is why there was a lawsuit by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      For the years when it was accepted that the even-numbers Star Trek movies were the good ones, adjusted for inflation:

      The Wrath of Khan made $195,813,803 from a budget of $27,791,563.
      The Voyage Home made $240,072,498 from a budget of $45,951,859.
      The Undiscovered Country made $170,579,218 from a budget of $52,816,901.
      First Contact made $222,943,340 from a budget of $68,702,290.

      (Those numbers come from Boxofficemojo and Wikipedia, adjusted for inflation via http://www.davemanuel.com/infl...)

      Granted, that's not Star Wars or Avengers money. But those are very respectable... and profitable... figures.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    5. Re:And that folks, is why there was a lawsuit by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No Trek fans are genuinely excited about Beyond. It looks like gatbage.

      Makes me glad not to be a trekkie, trekker, Trek Fan, or whatever they're called this week. I'm just a science fiction fan, who watches each Star Trek product one time.

      That said, they shouldn't hate on their fans. Seems pretty absurd. If they're really worried about the competition, they should offer a contract that gives them rights to productize the derivative work in exchange for a use license. Just cross-licensing without any money changing hands would solve the whole problem including all the related problems, and not antagonize their best customers.

  13. Legit by transami · · Score: 1

    If Paramount/CBS were smart they make a deal with these guys, throw some money at it and syndicate it. I don't know why Paramount/CBS hold so tightly to this franchise. They should take a page of Disney's handbook and give us fans multiple movies and shows.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
    1. Re:Legit by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If Paramount/CBS were smart they make a deal with these guys, throw some money at it and syndicate it. I don't know why Paramount/CBS hold so tightly to this franchise. They should take a page of Disney's handbook and give us fans multiple movies and shows.

      They already do. They allow fan fiction and works to be created - provided you don't try to make money off the property (or try to destroy it). This is to be honest one of the more open IP franchises out there.

      The problem is, it's a thin grey line separating what CBS/Paramount/Viacom (it's huge corporate mess) consider fan fiction, and what they consider commercial licensing required.

      And these guys with their crowdfunding campaign and all that apparently fell foul to that, for they felt it was going commercial. (Note: it would've been fine if they used crowdfunding to raise the licensing costs - it's happened before).

      Star Trek is an expensive property - I believe CBS/Paramount/VIacom want at least $55K to even sit down at the table. And that's just to get them together in the room - if they reject your idea they will take that $55k with them. (This is to avoid wasting everyone's time - if you're so sure your product will be a hit, $55k is nothing. If not, you do your due diligence and research to see...)

      Chances are, a deal will be struck and they will acquire a license. Depends on what was the objectionable parts - perhaps the fact backers got first dibs at the movie might be the whole sticking point (the fan fiction freedom means it must be available at no cost to everyone, so having people that paid for early access could be seen as commercial activity even if you're giving it away afterwards). In this case, it just means a little bit of the crowdfunding money will probably have to be taken out of production budget and into limited time licensing

    2. Re:Legit by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > If Paramount/CBS were smart they make a deal with these guys, throw some money at it and syndicate it.

      Many companies do that buying out smaller competitors. The result is often quite poor. The managerial, technical, and cultural approaches of the smaller company are lost, many of the best staff take the buyout money and move on to other projects, and you get uncertain quality about new projects. It's especially bad when the corporate offices have policies that work well for larger companies, and their staff have learned to work with, and the smaller company has not.

      I've seen many such smaller companies bought out by larger companies in my career. A modest percentage go on to complete their main projects, or help start new ones, but it's not a _large_ percentage.

    3. Re:Legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paramount might miss out on what's the most exciting part of Axanar - watching people talk about something to a camera, which is much cheaper than actually showing it. Why show a Klingon bridge when you can just have one dude talk about it? I'm all for low-budget cinema, but this is absurd. There's nothing to see here, this is a glorified audiobook. If you like the writing, hire those writers. If you like the ships, hire those CG artists. The sum of the parts as we've seen it is, at best, OK. It's not good. It's not great. It's good for a fan project, it's great for having no money, and maybe if it were a video podcast or a webseries (before the new Trek show kinda became a web series)? OK, it's not terrible. There are certainly good elements to be seen here, but I just cannot see what is the appeal here beyond a "Robin Hood" approach of a little guy taking the property that he does not own from the big media company and doing something with it that is, at best, very obviously not a production with money.

  14. A little more respect for J.J.A., now by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Whereas I've been a harsh critic of his Star Trek-flavored (which is like saying something is 'chocolate flavored', but not containing any actual chocolate) movies, but have greatly enjoyed his various television series (which makes for some internal conflicts for me), I now have a little more respect for the man that he'd stick his neck out for this. Now, if only Paramount will heed his words and let the whole thing drop for real..

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:A little more respect for J.J.A., now by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Hear hear, well spoken, Bruce. Now only time will tell if they turn off the legal heat on the fans, who are doing for (practically) nothing what the studios can't do with million dollar budgets. I mean, why can't they study the 20 or so good episodes of TOS and and get inspired for a new Trek? Why is the ONLY idea they ever come up with is blow up (or, at best, decommission) the Enterprise, when the Enterprise is really the only reason we go see the show?

      "These are the voyages... of bad boy Kirk, his goofy sidekick Spock, and some supporting cast with familiar names; their on-going mission, to beat up aliens, perform outrageous stunts, make awkward wise-cracks, and hop in the sack with every..."

      Doesn't sound right, does it?

      Been waiting a real long time, decades, for Trek to get its act together, which with Jay Jay has gone from bad to worse. I suppose Trek doesn't inspire as much respect from Mr. Abrams as the Star Wars franchise.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:A little more respect for J.J.A., now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JarJar didn't stick his neck out for shit. He made himself look good to fans for little to no risk. If Paramount takes his advice, he wins, he's the guy who publically talked them over whether true or not. If they don't, he wins, at least he was the guy who tried to stop this big bad corporation.

    3. Re:A little more respect for J.J.A., now by kheldan · · Score: 1

      JarJar didn't stick his neck out for shit. He made himself look good to fans for little to no risk.

      You can't prove that one way or the other, it's literally just your opinion. Regardless he's on public record as saying that so we have to take it at face value unless he proves otherwise with his actions.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:A little more respect for J.J.A., now by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      exactly.....i had dozens of reasons not to like him, but now, damn it, I gotta give him a little something on this

      you know, as long as we're not actually being blinded by a lens flare

  15. axanar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....they are thieves. As soon as they started paying themselves...

  16. Re:lawsuit isn't dropped until the lawsuit is drop by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Him looking like fool wouldn't be a problem for Paramount or those lawyers..

  17. Re:lawsuit isn't dropped until the lawsuit is drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bring the lawyers into it, they may not care if Abrams looks like a fool, but they just do what they are told. And while Paramount may seem like a faceless entity, it has real people working there calling the shots, these people may or may not care for Abrams' reputation, but they would probably like him to work for them again, so after telling him this lawsuit will get dropped, now he has made this public, they will make sure it happens because there is no profit in this lawsuit, but there is profit in their continued relationship with Abrams.