WHY DIDN'T CBS JUST MAKE AXANAR OFFICIAL? I keep seeing people ask this. That would never have worked. It would've set the precedent that if your fan film gets enough attention it can become official. Imagine trying to manage a franchise when a bunch of randoms are throwing shows at you which you didn't ask for. Also, CBS/Paramount had no reason to do such a thing. People were using their IP without permission for profit. End of story. SOME LINKS: Discord server: discord.gg/BYxQNuD Gaming Channel: ua-cam.com/channels/4AQjWVhQBOoHlOrKn_SJqA.html Second Channel: ua-cam.com/channels/uRTWD6C2lqy-y-0HMwRoNQ.html
what you refer to is called "licensing" and it happen all the time. are you a corporated shill or what? this is nonsence, as it would,in fact, cut drastically into production cost and manpower, thus helping to keep the franchise alive and well... question: is the franchise alive and well at the moment? no, it is dying...
@@monsieurdubitatif8567 "It is dying" Because... you know, a show three seasons in with a fourth on the way, two shows currently working on their second season, and three other shows currently in development means the franchise is dying...
Shows are done like that all the time and screenplays and books are written outside of the company and submitted for possible use. There are numerous production companies that make shows for all sorts of places. Ideas, screenplays and films are submitted all the time to companies like CBS and Paramount and that is how they get fresh content. The problem these days is they seem to be trapped in groupthink and have terrible management with awful skills that can only choose to put out sheer garbage these days. I know people that work in the film industry and they are terrified seeing their industry die as Netflix and other similar services have allowed the creation of low budget but better quality material that is out competing the old studio models. People are cutting the cable cord and going all online to the detriment of traditional film companies and TV stations and CBS/Paramount and many other traditional TV/Movie companies keep trying to break off and make their own streaming services that are failing as their model doesn't work anymore and they can't put out good content anymore with the SJW idiots they are hiring to produce content. Netflix, Amazon, UA-cam etc. have plenty of SJW garbage too but then there is lots of other content to choose from so you get more free market choice on those services compared to the limited garbage offered at the more traditional and limited thought niche of the old networks and companies. Movie chains are going out of business as attendance has tanked due to the garbage Hollywood has been putting out. Game of Thrones was my last straw with cable and I cut it off for good. The Last Jedi was the last straw for me with Hollywood and I haven't been back to a theater since. A couple of episodes of STD was enough to know it was NOT Star Trek just like one episode of Picard was enough to see it was terrible too. The Expanse and The Orville are currently the best options out there and actually can tell stories that offer entertainment to most people. The free market has spoken and CBS/Paramount needs to turn Trek over to people that know what they are doing to make what the fan base wants. STD has its fans but they are mainly not Star Trek fans and they often don't even know about Starr Trek or have plans to watch any of the older shows so they are just watching just another random show. Overlord DVD's channel sums all this up and more nicely.
@@ThrashMetallix yeah, and since mcdonalds is popular,that mean that they serve healthy food...invalid argument, and you know it. beside, it is on all access for a reason... and you seem to gobble up their bullshit to the point. reality is that their numbers are pathetic, it is almost as if no one watch it, except the poor suckers that have been fooled into that cbs access DISASTER...
Let's remember that Gene Roddenberry was not a fan of Patrick Stewart taking the role of Picard. He actively hated it at first, but he also decided to trust the production staff around him.
Also (from the half of the second season of TNG) when Rodenberry got sick, did not participate and left to others, that alone saved TNG and made it the probably the best Start Trek series. The first two season, especially the first had a lot of issues, during the time he was dictating.
Let’s not. To say your point as something we agree at face value, I’m not buying. Go prove Gene hated Patrick Stewart then I’ll believe. I never agree with the mouth open that start’s by saying, “You will agree, or Don’t you agree, or you must agree, or Let’s Remember, etc, etc.” Prove it, otherwise Gene was happy. The last words Gene did say in his last video was that, “There are infinite stories to be told, my god you are talking about the Universe and Humans in it”. Now when ppl say Gene hated this and that, it does not fit the over arching narrative of his vision. He put and African American communication officer, an Alien, Asian, Russian, Scotsman, Irish transporter chief, and Country Doctor etc. on the same Ship. When I grew space was always a ship of White guys in space suites on a Rocket traveling to planets fighting Bug Eyed monsters with a beautiful White woman for eye candy screaming from endless fear then half the crew is killed and they struggle back to earth all the time. That’s what Gene hated, this notion that Space travel and exploration was life threatening everywhere man went or goes in Space.
Yeah; don't forget he originally wanted Lloyd Bridges as Captain Kirk, too. He may be the luckiest TV producer of all time. It all came together with great writers and co-producers.
It still saddens me that we lost Richard Hatch, in Battlestar Galactica (2004-08) he was the most compelling and in-depth, flawlessly fleshed out villain of any tv show I have ever seen. To see him as a Klingon villain would have been the best antagonist in a Star Trek since General Chang and Gul Dukat.
@@DANRYX i watched it growing up and I don't think so. His character was captain Apollo a fighter pilot and adama son. So no he wasn't a villain. Google it nowhere is he a villain. Baltar was, adama's second in command was coopted according to the reboot( can't remember his name at the moment.
@@elizabethjansen2684 I'm referring to his portrayal of the newly created character of Tom Zarek (terrorist/political activist) in the 2004-2008 sci fi channel reboot series. He played as Apollo (protagonist) in the original series from the 70s. Although he was a villain in the newer series, he had a lot of political views that I agreed with over the main protagonists. The way they wrote the character of Zarek and how Richard Hatch performed that role is one of the best acting jobs of any show I have seen to date. You never knew when he was being genuine or plotting something evil/selfish, it made him such a compelling and complex character to watch from start to finish. I hope you have a chance to watch the reboot, at the very least, to watch Richard Hatch's performance (his best and most dynamic role he has ever done in my opinion)
@@DANRYX it also lists that character as a former terrorist but vice president under baltar. So not an angel but not exactly a villain. Rather like JR Ewing in Dallas. Hatch was a very good actor and pushed for the new series no doubt he wanted a meatier role than a goody two shoes.
To be honest, the path they tried to follow using Axanar’s take on the Star Trek universe to launch their company and future projects reminds me a lot of how Rooster Teeth started using the Halo universe for it’s Red vs Blue series. Considering how enormous Rooster Teeth became, it makes you think how different things might have been if Bungie had taken a more CBS approach to it’s copyrights and trademarks(and while in their rights, what might have happened if CBS had come to some sort of mutually beneficial agreement with Axanar).
It think the reason the Rooster Teeth and Halo situation worked was two fold. One Red vs Blue was clearly a parody and as such was closer to fair use than Axanar ever was. And two Microsoft was at the time focused on Halo as games and some novels. I think today with Microsoft pushing for a Halo TV show, some one trying for something similar to Red vs Blue would see more pushback from Microsoft, as they now see Halo as a multimedia IP.
The gaming industry self regulates the standard for fair use. In reality essentially any video, website, or media using using artwork, assets, or even synops'ing the story of a game could be considered a form of infringement. However because of the state of home video games in the mid 80s quality control was essentially non existent. Games like Custer's Revenge which is essentially about being a homicidal rapist cowboy in the wild west. Congress stepped in 1994 and crazy story pass a whole lot of incredibly overreaching and fortunately mostly un-constructional legislation that almost tanked the entire video game industry in the US. From then on it has been the unwritten rule between video game developers to try to not engage consumers in the courts. It hasn't turned out very well at any point and attracts a lot of unwanted negative media which the industry already gets enough of. Live by the fans die by the fans is basically it. Honestly a lot of the video game industry is like this where not exactly legal practices are largely commonplace. Like non compete or non disclosure contracts are the prime example of this right now. It is totally illegal but extremely common. What are you going to do sue the company thinking about hiring you? good luck buddy!
@@ipie13579 Except synopses, and screen shots are and have always been protected fair use when needed for news and commentary. That's not the video game industry, that's basic copyright law that applies to all media. Also, as someone who was actually around and paying attention in 1994, there was no congressional legislation of video games. It was threatened and hearing were held, but the industry forming the ESRB shut that down.
The difference here is that rooster teeth just used halo to make a comedy movie /series but not to make a halo movie. They used assets from bungie, Microsoft and EA titles but never made the productions about games they used. It was simply a platform to tell their story
Incedentaly I just got a 24 hour suspension for a Facebook group having got in to it a bit with Alec Peters. I challenged and maintained the content of this video as substantiated and corroborated by every official source available. However Mr. Peters was quite vocal with his response which contained the quote “CBS told us point blank that it was because Axanar was too good and that people would confuse it with the real Star Trek” Anyway, I got a ban and then the post was shut down because a lawyer joined the frey and asked if there was anywhere that he could read the transcripts. It’s a shame that pride bettered humility as Mr Peters really showed he’s quite talented and sadly lives in a delusional ego trip.
You keep saying "copyright" when most of the issue is about "trademark", both are "intellectual property" law, and while some of Paramount/CBS' copyright was violated, more of this was centered around trademark
Most people get the two confused. Here’s the big difference. You really don’t have to prove a Trademark violations in court. A thing is your registered Trademark. You hold title to it and are the expert at identifying your trademark. You can seize merchandise for a Trademark violations etc. unlike with Copyright you don’t have to prove each element of a violation in court. The trademark is registered and granted. But it is more limited. For example “Star Trek” or “Klingon” are Trademarks. The Federation/Starfleet and Klingon logos are Trademarked. Basically a Trademark are things that uniquely identify your brand. The story elements and design aesthetic of Axanar run afoul of copyright. And Trademarks do not expire so long as you exercise and protect them.
He keeps saying copyright because all the litigation was about copyright infringement. None of the litigation in the Axanar case was trademark. A federal judge found Alec Peters and Axanar both financially benefitted from Star Trek IP, and that they had objectively infringed on the Trek copyright. Certainly you could make a trademark case, too, but that's not what CBS/Paramount chose to do.
@@andysantacruz Calling it "Star Trek: Axanar" is a trademark infringement. And the name Axanar, which is a battle/place with origin in a TOS script only (not real-world connection) is also trademark eligible, just like the terms "Battlestar" and "X-Wing". Since they are also original expression in writing (script), they are copyrightable, too.
@@budbert6988 No one is saying CBS/Paramount *couldn’t* have gone after Axanar on trademark claims. The point is, they didn’t. They sued on copyright grounds, and that’s all. Arguably, the copyright claims were stronger than the trademark ones. Why? Trademark requires the holder to constantly and vigilantly protect its marks everywhere it sees it being incorrectly used. If Alec Peters’ lawyers were to defend him on trademark, they would’ve had a strong defense in claiming that CBS/Paramount had allowed its “Star Trek” mark to be exploited for decades by fan productions, and that it had arguably released its hold on the mark. Copyright law requires no such diligence on the part of the holder. The copyright owner has absolute control over their intellectual property; they can’t lose that control even if they look the other way when others infringe on it. They also have the right to enforce their copyright selectively, arbitrarily, even capriciously; point is, they get to choose who, how and where to defend their copyright. That simply isn’t the case with trademark.
@@andysantacruz Not necessarily true - the prevailing criteria in judging a trademark case is "confusion in the marketplace" for comparable products. The production value of early fan productions could not be confused - as production values went up, they crept up to the non-infringement threshold, especially as "look-and-feel" is also established as trademark-able. No one can credibly claim that the trademark was abandoned - they have a licensing unit after all, as did Paramount for the movies.
They were trying to start a for-profit company (the studio) off of exploiting intellectual property they DID NOT OWN. I don't even understand the fans who defend this thing. Well, I understand them, because they think they have ownership over the property. They don't. Even beyond that, Alec Peters sure seems to have a long history of dubious fan-centric business ventures that he really doesn't have the legal right to pursue. frankly, we just have another example of fandom ignoring logic to play the victim card. Love your channel, BTW. As if all the comments today weren't evidence enough.
Aye, the first sentence says it all. Unless someone either owns the rights or has been granted the rights to a particular property, they should not exploit it commercially, on a for-profit basis. That's just basic logic and respect for the legal situation.
No, it’s not this production, it’s that the rights holders went nuclear on all fan productions by making the rules quite draconian. Go read them. Not longer than 15 minutes, never use an actor that’s ever been in a real ST production before, etc. The rules made something like the incredible “Star Trek Continues” completely impossible (though they did alert that production that while they would have to stop, they could finish the eps they were still producing.) There’s no question they had a valid beef here but they could have handled it far better. It’s not “bad optics” to go nuclear like they did against their most dedicated fans, it’s insane. IANAL, but it seems like they could have issued less draconian rules, something like “if you sell merch, we’ll sue you”, “if you raise more funds than needed for the basic production, it must be returned or given to us, or whatever (it’s almost certain any SAG actor would have to be paid minimum union rates, that sort of thing)”.
These 20 minutes felt more like Star Trek than the current crop do. Feelings of course are subjective, but the visual theme, mood and tone go a long way. As a movie, who knows. But as a documentary style movie, it would have been better. Is it just the looks? No. Mood. Tone. And perhaps spirit - the soft scores. The newer stuff is uncanny valley. Cannon, but somehow wrong. Just my opinion.
Why accept "cannon" when you have suits interested in selling you a story setting cannon and not people interested in the story itself. I agree with you that this 20 minutes feels more like Star Trek than much of the "cannon" produced nowadays.
One thing about the Klingons lacking the smooth heads of the TOS Klingons in Prelude to Axanar. We only see the one, played by Richard Hatch, and his character is doing an interview decades later. At that point, the Klingons, even those with smooth heads, had ridges again. For example, Kor, played by John Colicos in both TOS and Deep Space Nine, had ridges when his character returned in DS9, when he had a smooth head in TOS. Its not a tough jump to make to assume they fixed the issue that started in Enterprise by then, at least for those high up in the military such as Kor.
I haven't seen this fan film but in the clip he shows he seems to have small ridges and TOS like facial hair. It looks like whoever's decision it was was trying to go for somewhere between TOS and TNG level makeup.
@@lars573 Thanks, I knew this was somewhere but couldn't remember the source. In the novels, of course, the problem was a disease called Imperial Plague and the Klingon Rulers were essentially quarantined on Kronos so they could keep their head ridges....like Hatches character was presented....
To paraphrase Tali from Mass Effect 2, "I understand. I do not agree with you, but I understand". I actually don't hate Discovery or the Abrams movies, but I DO hate a lot of the choices made in making them, especially the aesthetics, and I still think Axanar would FOR ME have been far more my cup of Earl Grey Hot haha. Doesn't mean I can't see where you're coming from too though
Mr. Spock had said that long before Tali. I believe on two separate episodes, "A Taste of Armageddon" and "The Way to Eden" (but I could be mistaken on the second one. Its not an episode I watch very often lol)
I think people use the term "real" Trek because it seems to hold a strong continuity with the previous production in terms of aesthetic, hell they even have Soval in it.
A comment from the future, but I can honestly say the first season of Strange New World was excellent, and it finally feels like the official productions have found their footing. If other Trek is at least at that level, then the rights holders are finally investing in the right direction for the overall brand.
Alex Peters is a con artist .One thing I'm not sure many know is he was trying to do paid screenings .Prelude to a what was good ,But using fans to pay yourself and buy yourself a tesla .....I wish paramount would of crushed peters
You are hitting on one of my biggest pet peeves with the fan discourse around modern Star Trek! I've been a hyper obsessed fan of Star Trek since the 90s. I grew up on it. Whats sad for me now is that I try my hardest to NOT talk about Trek anymore because I have to put up with negative bad faith criticism from one group and overt sycophancy from another. Personally I have serious problems with all 3 modern Trek series so far. Without going into major/annoying detail i will simply state I have issues with concept, writing, canon continuity (I know, I know, WHO CARES right? ; ) and what feels like an onscreen preoccupation with Star Trek from a trivial, mainstream pop culture POV. I've been quite bummed out by all 3 new shows as with each of them I was genuinely excited and hopeful I would enjoy them all, but the opposite has happened. As a long time fan I also recognize that every Trek series had weak to bad 1st and 2nd seasons and eventually found their footing along the way. It's this fact/tradition that keeps me from quitting Trek altogether. Meanwhile over the past 3 years or so when looking for like minded fans to openly and constructively discuss modern Trek I have become so sick and tired of THE WAY people talk about Trek . I express my negative issues with Trek, as well as my positive and 9 times out of 10 I get frustrated by the asinine responses I get... "You don't LOVE ALL of modern Trek above any and every thing that came before it? You dont think all of it is THE best example of sci-fi since the genres birth!? Well you are just an old, out of touch, angry, lazy, bitter old (fill in the egregious insult that ends with -ist) that doesn't matter as a fan! Its no longer made for YOU, so get over it!" or... "You dont think every person, concept, or motivation behind modern Trek is evil and makes for the worst TV shows of all time? Obviously you're a PC beta, virtue signaling, troglodytic interloping cuck trying to turn Trek into something it should never be and you'd know that if you were a real fan!"
well done for digging around for the positives in new trek... i could only come up with saru and well the effects are good.... I've gone through the stages of grief with star trek.... tos was something that was always there... it would be on and you'd be aware of it. and i always loved watching the movies when they were on tv. but i wasn't hooked until i was a teenager and watched tng.. then ds9 followed then voyager.. I didn't catch enterprise because by that point in the uk the bbc weren't buying shows.. so it was on channel 4 and i never caught it... Now I'll admit not every episode blew my mind and there were the ones that you'd rather skip but I never felt that way about an entire series.... Now when they announced a new trek series i was ready for it.... so excited and when i pressed play on discovery within 5 minutes I paused it and asked my wife... what have they done??? what is this?? now you can call me entitled fanboy if that makes you feel better... Discovery repulsed me.... And that's fine.... as we know this isn't being written for entitled tng fans.... this is a modern take on star trek and if you don't like that you can take a walk.... so i do, i watch 90's star trek on netflix... I'm not a member of the fandom menace but this version of star trek does nothing for me... i find it aggravating to watch.... it took me about 7 months to watch season 1.... its the only tv show where I've had to pause or just switch off {sometimes multiple times in an episode) because i just cant stomach watching any more... I had the same response to the first episode of Picard and didn't bother with the rest of the series... For a while i was one of those people who would say its just not star trek.... which is an open goal really because it gives way to exactly what Rowan does which is point out all the contradictions between all the other series.. and then you get to the eventual oh i get it it's because the main character is a black woman..... what i mean is, like you say the defence of discovery is usually you obviously have never watched star trek then..... Then I started watching Jessie Gender and Steve Shives, who in one of there videos praising how brave new trek is because they are deconstructing star trek and building it back up for modern audiences.... When I heard that a lightbulb went off in my head.... because at that moment I realised... yes they do understand that new trek isn't like classic star trek... now a deconstructed cheese cake is still a cheese cake by its name, but I'd rather just have a cheese cake... and that's how i feel about star trek... so, new trek can deconstruct star trek in what ever way it wants, I really have no desire to watch it. not for any moral grand standing... it just does nothing for me... in the same way that EastEnders or the real housewives of Cheshire do nothing for me, so I don't watch those shows either.... I wasn't expecting this video to turn into another - If you don't like discovery you're an idiot video aswell......
Interesting. While I have certainly encountered many of your former examples I haven't run into the latter. I've heard plenty of "the bad is so bad its not worth the small gems that get left in accidentally", but I haven't heard old school caring enough to say that there is NOTHING good, just that the bad makes it unwatchable.
@Langy M Neely "Well you are just an old, out of touch, angry, lazy, bitter old (fill in the egregious insult that ends with -ist) that doesn't matter as a fan! Its no longer made for YOU, so get over it!" Oh, I criticised Discovery on another video, and got the race/misogyny card pulled on me. Apparently, the reason I don't like Discovery is because I am a racist and misogynist so I have a problem with a strong black female lead... Yeah, right. This will is be why my two favourite ST series are DS9 and Voyager 🙄 Go Figure!
@@davidanderson4091 Really depends on what season of discovery first season first half didn't like that much. 2nd season with pike was pretty good even though their enemy control wasn't that good. Though a bit too much focus on a few characters. 3rd Feels more like they where building a new series 4th actually feels really good is more balance between ds9 short stories and main story thread. Also a lot more focus on other characters in the 4th season.
@Alex Romeli No, it's logic in tandem with emotion. I don't want to gatekeep or anything, but there's a reason the first season was centered around discussions between McCoy (the emotional), Spock (the coldly rational) and Kirk (who tried to make the best decision with the options available).
100% agree that Alex threw the fandom under the bus by merchandising the project and I understand that CBS and Paramount had to protect their IP, but they really could have just arranged to take over production of Axanar and launch it themselves, given that every single project they've launched since then has been either garbage or garbage adjacent. Yes it might have set a precedent, but as a multimillion dollar company you have the power to just say no to any projects you don't like. So while I don't believe that Axanar outshining the official projects in the works was THE factor in the company's decision to rewrite the guidelines, I suspect that at least someone in the company was concerned with how it would look when fans could create better feature length material than they could.
Whether "Axanar" would've been the true Star Trek, or not, all I know is the consequence of their actions killed "Star Trek Continues." And THAT fan production was exceptional Star Trek.
I was going to make the same point, Axanar pushed the boundaries set by CBS/Paramount much to far and brought about a much more restrictive policy on what fan productions could do killing off the likes of Star Trek Continues.
Uhm... not quite. Star Trek Continues still made at least four full episodes AFTER the Guidelines were put into effect. Episodes that violated about half of them. Not the least of which being more than 15 minutes, being more than 2 parts, having "Star Trek" in the main title rather than "A Star Trek fan production" as a subtitle, AND including established actors from Star Trek. Continues didn't just halt. They got all the way through the story arc they intended for the complete series,... so they had FINISHED their work. Its not like they left on a cliffhanger, its not like they just abruptly concluded,... so I don't know what people mean by "such a shame they had to stop"... they reached their end goal.
@@k1productions87 You are incorrect. They had those episodes in the can before the guidelines were put into full effect. They would've made many more episodes if they'd been allowed.
Axanar is back into production. Scene by scene is being filmed. It's slowly coming together. One of the biggest holes is re-assigning the role of the Klingon leader Karn. With the death of Richard Hatch, the groundwork that had been produced with him has to be re-shot with another actor. There was already many references to Karn in the initial filming that entirely replacing the Karn character was not a good option. Sad that Mr. Hatch will not be around to see this project completed.
My problem with Dsicoverys Klingon war has ships that are just huge like bigger than the Enterprise D in some cases, and without a good story Disco haas very little left to offer
I would not say Axanar is not real Star Trek. Rather as a long time fan, Axanar is closer to original Star Trek than anything which has come out of Paramount recently. In my opinion and full disclosure I donated to Axanar, I think Axanar raised too much money for a film on someone else's intellectual property. I believe using the funds of Axanar to create a business by which Alec Peters would profit from was a legitimate violation of Paramounts rights. Later.
Just found this, I know it's an old video but I thought I'd comment. 1. The legality of axanar is as you said cut and dry. The question should not be is it legal (strictly speaking no), the question is in my mind is should copyright laws have this much reach. The original intent of copyright was to insure that a creator could fairly profit of his or her creation during his or her lifetime. Today copyright laws insure that the corporations that employ creative people can profit off said creative people's creations in perpetuity. Original copyright laws covered the idea of creative people taking previous ideas and expanding on them. It allowed for new interpretations of older material, such as the many riffs on shakespare, or what disney did with fairy tales. Or for example what Peters had done with prelude to axanar. Disney especially has had a big hand in changing these laws. If copyright laws were in the 1920's what they are today, disney would have never gotten off the ground. 2. I liked prelude because as you said it was more visually familiar, it had a great cast, and it was a combination of ken burns style documentary and star trek. 2 more hours of something like that would have been fantastic. It seems that Peters had made the creative decision to pivot to a typical bridge style drama going by what axanar gathering storm. 3. There is something deeper going on that was touched on in this video. So many actors distanced themselves from the project. Gary Graham, tony todd, and pretty much everyone distanced themselves from axanar and alex peters. Be that because of some kind of toxic element introduced by peters or because CBS/paramount was threatening to destroy the careers of these working actors. I don't know. 4. I tend to give Peters the benefit of the doubt in general. Some of you, a few of you might be aware that there used to be a privately run star trek museum in the little town of vulcan alberta. It was on the verge of financial collapse and Peters stepped in and saved it at the last minute. Ultimately it was not meant to be because the museum went under. But I had visited the museum a few times, the fellow who owned it was a fantastic fellow and I will always be grateful that Peters stepped in and helped out.
I 100% understand why Paramount/CBS shut Axanar down. You have to be extremely naive of both the entertainment industry and the Axanar production to believe that the studios were wrong to stop this. However, Prelude to Axanar is still my favourite 21 minutes of Star Trek produced since the 2009 film. I'm not going to justify that opinion, it's just my own enjoyment (or more recently lack of enjoyment) whilst watching modern Star Trek.
I'm kinda late for this whole ordeal but if you ask me they (CBS/Paramount) should at the very least asked for them (the Axanar team end the people involved, investors, actors and so on) to join them to make this a reality along with the Discovery..."thing"...before suing them. Instead of the option of this possibility, or even something better than this vague idea we (and by "we" I mean we as a fanbase, they as CBS/Paramount and the producers and the Axenar team and actors) lost the oportunity to have another great fan-made production and ended up with 2 horrible series. It's not about naivity, but how much people out there are so about the money, they forget the good possibilities that some relations might bring. If you think that believing that people would want to make great things in their life is "naive" than I'm sorry to say, you kinda missed the whole point that Star Trek told us about. There are people out there trying to undermine others and get on top of everyone else, yes, but I think sometimes you should at least give the benefit of the doubt. But hey, the damage is done, as always.
@@Beta_Mixesyea they should of, but because CBS had a contract with Jar Jar and his disciple Kurtzman if Secret Hideout, they didn’t want another show they didn’t control taking money away from them. Same reason the 2009 Star Trek had to be at least 25% different so all the merchandise money would go to them
Yes, but you have to remember to put it in the context… Back then there had been basically a full decade of Lucas film looking the other direction on Star Wars projects (and even actively advertising their support of some of them) and Paramount in basically saying nothing about Star Trek fan films. There was a certain idealized world out there that had been asking aloud whether you could basically will these two worlds into a pseudo public domain. It was an odd social time where Google and Facebook and UA-cam and everybody wanted to present this sort of utopian perspective of “we’re not going to sue anybody for anything as long as everybody plays nicely in the sandbox and we get to just silently make money in the background.“ So as strange as it may seem to people, nowadays, I think it’s important to point out that Paramount/CBS’s silence was strongly noted and everyone presumed that they would not sell anything for profit… No one ever had before. It did depend on a handshake in Goodwill and so I completely understand the eventual lawsuit, but the days of unhindered fan films/fan fiction was a brief moment of civility and celebration of Star Trek culture that I dont think we’ll ever see again
@@MurderMostFowl That's the point. Axanar clearly jumped over the line between fan film and commercial product using the Trek IP. If Paramount had looked the other way it would have been 10 times harder to stop the flood of small production companies creating their own Trek content. Personally, I think that would have been a great thing - but these are public listed companies that have a legal responsibility to their share owners. It's all very well saying that wouldn't it be great if everyone was a bit more Trek and didn't worry about profit and so and so - but if Paramount had allowed a multi-billion dollar franchise to be stolen from them that could have genuinely led to legal cases against it's board and CEO.
I've been pretty "meh" on modern trek for a while, as someone who loved DS9 and TNG. I don't find them terribly offensive, but I can't say they're even in my top 5 star trek productions. The problem is that it's very easy for a fandom to latch on to a handful of outspoken personalities and spread their opinions as though they were gospel. Don't get me wrong, I am a spaceship nerd, I've watched every video Spacedock has ever put out, but that's not what I go to Star Trek for, it's just a fun extra bit I get to nerd out about.
You’re right about Axanar and Discovery being kind’a the same thing. Except Axanar had the proper setting; the characters are more traditionally Star Trek, the ships look like Star Trek; it fits the established setting. DS9 did the same. It’s second half was all war. But it worked for the same reasons. Discovery does not. You can’t reconcile the two.
It shows the difference between those that "get it" and those that don't. The death of a thousand cuts issues with Discovery and Picard would have been (somewhat) overlooked if either had been any good. Presentation and delivery is nothing if the content is flawed.
Guys, your head canon of what Star Trek should or shouldn't be is not the standard people dealing the material will held too. We don't own it, and never will. You people sound like all the fans that hated TNG or DS9 back when first came out. Get some perspective.
Cut out the gorgeous cg work of Tobias Richter and it basically boils down to shots of people sitting in chairs verbally fellating the main character while some anamorphic lens flares make everyone look wistful. Its a rarely done framing device that makes it a little refreshing and interesting, but its the same technique Halo 3 used for its trailer because its all coded to let people trick themselves, going 'ah, war veterans and sombre music, this is a serious adult thing like a museum, which we are looking at because we are cultured intellectuals and not because pew pew laser beams'. Its an reasonably entertaining 20 minutes sure, but it is not some bastion of amazing writing. And most crucially, has nothing to do with what the quality of its actual final story, acting, dialogue, characters, and themes would have been.
@@RowanJColeman It's also a case of simple over exposure, plus her being Spock's brother, a Vulcan-level intellect, and so on. And the Axanar has this historical style thing going with the 'myth of Garth' that I think the actual character would turn out fairly different from, seeing himself as mythologized. We also get Sonya and Marcus and other major characters thrown in too, and Karn, so I assume there would be several points of view. And in seeing how the Federation was challenged, rise to the occasion and struggle to maintain their ideas, I suspect a lot of thematic material would still come to the fore.
I was a teenager when Star Trek was in first run on TV and have followed it ever since. The Kelvin timeline and the new CBS stuff simply has not clicked that well with me. I enjoyed the first Kelvin film, but the others were not as interesting as I had hoped. I have no interest in Discovery or Picard so I cannot comment on them. I do believe, however, that Star Trek must evolve to speak to modern audiences. Roddenberry's Trek was for my generation and probably the next, but maybe not for more modern tastes. One nit to pick: Garth of Izar is most definitely not a Gary Sue: he is explicitly mentioned in TOS as one of the greatest of the early Star Fleet commanders due to his victory at Axanar so he has the history and the chops to be treated as he is in Axanar. I would have liked to see his story and, eventually in another film, how and why he descended into madness.
@@Carabas72 It's less being mentioned and more of what we saw of him in TOS, namely that he went mad and was a shadow of his former self. Gary Stus don't tend to have something like this happen to them.
Old trek is not for modern taste is such a BS reasoning, what the Fandom doesn't like is similar to the recent concern amongst LOTR fanbase that the new LOTR TV shows will be turned into something like game of thrones show (aka including nudity, excess gore, inclusion of lgbtq etc) just for the sake of making it modern.
Despite the merch situation of axinar, this has way more trek feeling to it than cbs has produced. It looks way more hopeful and positive than horrific gore and crew being mean to each bother. I’d have loved that team to take over the control of the franchise. Missed opportunity in my opinion. If CBS had said they will fund it and then get the majority of the profits, a lot more fans would be happy than what we ended up with. With the Klingon head thing, they said in enterprise that surgery would be a popular medical profession to fix the smooth heads - possibly some did and others embraced the smooth heads. Or not enough medics available.
11:05 Well, to me it's not that it's too much action, but it's that the action is completely senseless. It's a soup of "stuff" and "things" happening in a vaguely Star Trek aesthetic (though with Discovery it's more like some names are shared with the rest of Star Trek), which can definitely make it feel like there's too much action. Prelude to Axenar kept a very good TOS aesthetic while paying tribute to the Vulcan arc from Enterprise and while having war themes went more in the direction of DS9 war portrayal rather then the modern Star Treks warships, grunts and cyberpunk portrayal. It's a complete 180 from what we got with Discovery.
It's easy to cut together a trailer that looks great but it's a whole other thing to make a show or film. I saw one of that team's previous projects, Renegade. And it is one of the worst Star Trek stories ever.
The whole lead up to Renegades actually got me interested in it (I'm normally not a fan of fan productions), but after 10 minutes of the actual thing I turned it off. Unwatchable. I was immediately reminded why I'm not a fan of fan films...
Renegades was not actually their project. That was Tim Russ and Walter Koenig's project that had closer ties with the New Voyages / Phase II team, which was James Cowley's production, not Alec Peters' And yes... Renegades was certainly rough. It did get a little better when you get to see Tuvok and Checkov, but... only a little. Meanwhile, Renegades was also selling merch. Most notably custom badges and resign-cast props like Phaser pistols and the like. Most notably at the Star Trek Las Vegas convention the year before the "guidelines" happened. Also the folks from Star Trek Continues were selling autographed photos with them as their Star Trek fan film characters. So, virtually EVERY major fan film production was "making money" off it. This was by no means limited to Axanar. Even so,... "merch" is a big-ass grey area when it comes to fan productions. Fan Artists have been making money off Fan Art since the term even existed. Anyone who wants to say "if you make make money off someone else's IP, you are a criminal", I dare them to say those words out loud in Artist Alley at any Anime Convention you could name. As I said,... its not black and white, its a mirky shade of grey.
@@k1productions87 it's really a matter of scale. If some random artist is selling Star Trek or Marvel fan art, making $40 per commission, most companies will not care. But if you're building an entire film studio on trademarked/copyrighted material, getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters, outright telling people that the money will be used to build a business that will work on other projects, that's going to be a problem.
@@KingOfMadCows If building a studio was such a big deal, the lawsuit would have happened the second it was announced during the Kickstarter. But it was not. Indeed the studio wasn't even the topic of the lawsuit. Hell, "Ares Studios" was even allowed to continue to exist after the settlement was reached (Yes, the lawsuit ended in a settlement, not a "you're guilty" judgment). If it was such a big deal, it would have been stamped out of existence without question. I know we want things to be all black and white, but reality is always more mirky shades of grey.
I initially really liked the idea of Axanar and supported it but I became concerned about the amount of money us fans were pledging seemed to be going into a black hole and still has not been accounted for and has just left mostly bad feeling. Will we ever see anything...... probably not sadly. Awesome stuff Rowan.
It was to help him set up a studio to make a living off. That was the black hole in the end. Thankfully CBS/Paramount shut him down before he could continued to scam anyone else.
incorrect. The pledge money WAS accounted for, and the breakdown of where it was going has been clearly spelled out many times. The "black hole" became the trial, as all production was forced to cease, making the rented location continue to suck monthly payments so long as the trial continued, until finally they were forced to uproot and move. It was supposed to become a place where fan and independent film makers could do their work inexpensively in the financial sinkhole that is California with all its regulations, taxes and fees. THAT was the point of the studio. But thanks to the trial eating a big chunk out of the budget, they had to abandon California and move somewhere cheaper with less politics. Those of us who live in California lost what would have been an incredible resource... while people paint the big corporation as the victims
@@nulian That is actually false. Firstly, selling merchandise wasn't even an issue in the lawsuit. Secondly, selling merchandise and other stuff is no different than selling autographed photos of you as the Star Trek fan-character (Star Trek Continues was doing that), or selling props, models, and badges used in your fan film (Star Trek Renegades did that), or the thousands upon thousands of fan-artists selling their works of others' copyrights at any convention across the country, whether it be anime or sci-fi. Pointing to the "selling merchandise" is just to go-to for those who either don't know what they are talking about, OR are banking on the fact that others don't know the difference. Here is some food for thought, if selling merchandise was such a big no-no,... why do Paramount and CBS allow them to continue to do it, even after the lawsuit settlement and the terms therein?
A valid concern. Honestly, if I was donating money to a fan film, my own requirements would be to keep it non-commercial and to keep the use of the donations transparent. It seems the issue in this case was mainly with the former, less so or not with the latter.
I do think canon matters generally and in discovery they looked very different from what we as fans knew and that was a tad jarring. I also think at the end of season one of discovery i didn't feel like I knew a lot about other characters as they did feel less developed and that was unfortunate when it came to the writing at the end of the first season. Discovery also seemed to need the time jump to be at it's best. That all seems to be a writing issue sadly
Copyright law is meant to establish legal ownership of an intellectual property. Corporations don't own the rights to *anything* unless the ACTUAL copyright owner sells it to them. So don't blame the corpirations, blame the artists who sell to them.
I love that the copyright law is your counterargument. Copyright law only changed to allow companies to hold ideas like this nearly indefinitely. Companies don't get to make money off creative peoples ideas forever, nor should 'copyright law' be the only worthwhile defense. Laws change, in fact copyright law has changed in very recent terms.
Yeah, his ignoring this angle and his passing "the fan guidelines are bad but that's irrelevant right now" made this feel like a cop-out. Will have to wait and see if he does a seperate video on that.
@@Avjunza I think rowan even mentioned/alluded that the guidelines are a bit much - I'd say draconian - but trek always has been about making money - so if someone uses your IP for their own income stream, you have to do something, especially when it was Peters and his legal team that asked for the guidelines
@@SC-mq1eh trek was about saying we don't need money. Companies were about making money off it. And the copyright law that allowed them to be this draconian was in 1976, years after Star Trek came out and was abandoned by its copyright holders (until they realized it had a rabid fanbase).
@@SC-mq1eh that this law changed to benefit companies at the cost of creativity, and too much of our society is for the benefit of companies with the average persons reaction seems to be, "it is what it is......what is the problem?"
Axanar aproached war and battles from the perspective of war history and war strategy, Discovery aproached from the perspective of lets make everything flashy and colorful, that's the main issue
PRELUDE to Axanar approached it from that direction, because it was a 10 minute trailer that used that as a framing device, and lets be honest there's a good chance they were riffing on that Halo 3 trailer that did that back in the day. Axanar itself would have almost certainly approached it like any other blockbuster
Accurate uniforms is definitely why I would have preferred this over discovery. 80s/90s trek is visually distinct. Discovery doesn't feel like the same aesthetic language.
Kind of like "Promethius' looked nothing like 'Alien' or 'Aliens' - more advanced styles, even though it was set in an earlier time than Ripley's adventures.
I'm not convinced it would have been "wall-to-wall action". Not like modern Trek that's heavy on the special effect just for the sake of cool. This would have been heavy on combat yes, but with more focus on the characters who were hip deep in it. It would remain focused on the human element rather than just action for the sake of action. The thing that got me excited was the President's speech in "Prelude". That moment felt like proper Trek, because it felt like a speech that was very much in line with true Federation values of the time. It had the soul involved, not just events. All that said, that was my sense of it. We could have gotten something that was nothing of the sort, and I would have been VERY disappointed.
I agree. What a lot of people in the comments, including Rowan, seem to be overlooking is that Axanar would have been the story of a battle ... that kinda requires, well, a battle? It would be like telling the story of The Battle of Midway, or Trafalgar, or Desert Storm and not having any fighting take place if these people got their way.
Exactly. It was bound to show some conflict because the story was about the Four Years War with the Klingons. But as we can see from Prelude and other released titbits, the war was the background to very human (and alien) stories. It was clearly going to try and show it from the Klingon perspective too. Watching Kharn, you could only feel interest, admiration and respect for that character.
" I'm not convinced it would have been ""wall-to-wall action"". Not like modern Trek that's heavy on the special effect just for the sake of cool. " You sound totally brainwashed and deluded. Just go and try to re-read the tosh after yourself. Bloody Hell!!! This is insane!!
I do know it would have been great. I know because I watched the first Axanar OVER and OVER and OVER and it made me want more. CBS can't do that for me. I believe it would have been great. However, CBS was in there rights. CBS should have just funded AXANAR as the greatest fan film ever made and made it a POSITIVE.
I was very pumped for Axanar (less so now), and laughed at CBS/Paramount making themselves look like asses with the lawsuit and the way the PR was handled... ...but I never really paid attention to all the merch they were selling, and when you pointed that out in your video I was like " :| ...yeaaaah... Alec Peters done f-ed up hard right there." Real good point.
How is Garth of Izar as we know him now different from Michael Burnham? Garth is known to have made an interesting manuver, that makes him a revered hero. Michael Burnham is a crazy martial arts expert, who's the stepdaughter of Spock, who travels time, who basically does everything and anything no normal human could not do in order to preach the philosophy of how cool 115-pound girl can be..... Literally everyone else on Discovery is a better charter, because they come with real flaws. Not situationally developed contrived in-human flaws..... It's Stupid. If you can't tell the difference between character development and forcing it your lost. Not to mention the writing of Axanar are highly implies that Garth isn't a superhero, he has Li Nalas syndrome. Everyone worships him as a hero but he thinks he "got lucky". Michael, superhuman with ties to main characters that never brought them up before and never suffers any kind of real lasting damage or consequences of their horrendous ends-justify-the-means philosophy.
More to the point, he was Kirk's hero and in continuity we WAS a great tactician and hero in the Federation, just like Kirk was portrayed. That hardly prevents an ensemble cast, no does it say that absolutely every decision on every subject was made by one character who was never wrong and never suffered any real setbacks due to their own decisions. In fact, Prelude shows quite a few arenas where other people were clearly the leads.
Garth should have been the antagonist in Star Trek: Into Darkness and NOT Khan. The putting your hero on a pedestal that you have to take down idea could have been explored to great effect IMO.
A classic example of how getting promoted above Captain causes insanity. Fleet captain, commodore, admiral... If you go above captain, you're gonna go evil, insane, or suffer a fate worse than death that even the redshirts would say "Wow, glad that wasn't me!" at.
I think the “Mary Sue” opinion is flawed. Just because you just landed on this planet doesn't mean that Tom Hanks is a “Mary Sue” because he's a great actor. He was a great actor before you got here. A lot of narrative was spent to explain the Klingon commander before he even showed up. Now, if it turned out he was also a powerful Sith... Well okay, maybe that would make him a “Mary Sue”. Everyone in a story has to be explained. The “Mary Sue’s” are the ones that don't have an explanation to why they have any given ability that changes the course of the narrative.
With hindsight being 2020. I think CBS should have got the guys to admit that they violated CBS copyright and then CBS should find the project or collected any profits from the merchandise. Then let the movie come out. That way they could have protected their copy right but not piss off Star Trek fans.
I think that would've set a bad precedent. There'd suddenly be dozens of high profile fan films expecting to be picked up by CBS. That's no way to manage a franchise.
Why would they reward people who were using intellectual property they didn't own to enrich themselves? Read the script. It wasn't worth diluting their ownership of Star Trek to produce that screenplay. axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=script_release
That would have been a very bad move on CBS' part, and I doubt their lawyers would have ever let that happen. The point is they cannot encourage this kind of behavior, so it had to be a firm slap down.
@@RowanJColeman would it? Would it really? Judt look at game companies. Various publishers hire independent developer companies to make games for their IP. A similar situation could of happened here.
@@paulrasmussen8953 how many of those used other peoples IP and tried to publish that before being picked up? If you cant stomach the reasons given by proffesionals (ie not finding a working example with above mentioned framing). Law is not easy, so if people in droves choose to axe somethign that might come back and bite them if they do not, perhaps youre not looking at is sincearly if all you can think of is "what couldve gone wrong?"
I feel like you've misunderstood or misrepresented things in this video. At least as far as fan reaction to Axanar vs Discovery and such. While there are certainly strong similarities between the two the important differences are that the creators of Axanar showed more intention to maintaining the continuity and feel of Star Trek as we've always known it where as Discovery has been more interested in being new and different even somewhat irreverent of what came before. Personally I find it unfortunate that Axanar has stalled because I'm not interested in any of the current Star Trek shows. They are far to "mature" for my taste when it comes to depictions of violence, language, and sexuality. I'm not upset about them tackling difficult and sensitive things morally and politically, but I prefer it in a much more family friendly manor, which is something Axanar was going to do.
The beauty about classic Trek all the way up to 2005 is that social and political issues are discussed with the lens of analogy where they leave it to the viewer to see many sides and come up with their own opinions.
There can be huge difference between action scenes and "dark" and "war". The problem with New Trek, for example 09, that its action and battles are like from Marvel or Transformers. There is not a sense military combat tactics happening, the characters do not appear as commanders of military forces. The characters and the actors both appear to be too young for the role they take. Kirk's story in 09 is that he is kicked out of Starfleet as a cadet, he didn't even graduated, then he hitchhikes on the Enterprise, then things happen, then suddenly he takes the Captain's chair. He isn't even in Starfleet practically on that point, he isn't graduated from the academy, he isn't on the ship crew roster of the Enterprise, and he is certainly not the second to take Captaincy by chain of command, from Spock in that film. The only reason he ends up being captain, because dumb audiance knows Kirk is captain, so at the end of dumb movie, Kirk has to be captain, and it doesn't matter if it makes zero sense in the film's own narrative. I remember that funny line when Nog asks O'Brien if he takes the chair would he be called captain, and the answer is "Cadet when you are in that chair, nobody left to call you captain." I love spacebattles, I love warstories, i love movies like The Outpost, or Battle of the Bulge, or Waterloo, even Midway was a correct recent warmovie even if not holding up against classics. Deep Space Nine sells itself as a war story, it has wartime drama, topics, stylistic story telling fitting for these type of stories and the characters are fitting into it. New Star Trek characters are just not believeable as such characters. War, action, dark stuff can be thought provoking, and smart as well. But the new treks never appear to be. I like dumb action movies, don't get me wrong, like Six Underground, or Commando for a classic. But I don't like dumb posing as smart. Also both Picard and Discovery, are internally inconsistent, lots of things just happen to have action, or some ridiculus plot twists, and the character are mostly insufferable. I also don't like all the violations against Star Trek I hold dear going on, but even why I try to look over these, they just don't hold up themselves. There are a few mediocry entertaining episodes, and most of them are boring, or annoying.
I never understand how people get pissy about CBS/Paramount defending their IP when it comes to Fan Films. I'm as much of a fan as the next person, but honestly, I have no idea how so many of these projects get off the ground. The laws of copyright are pretty clear-cut. Believe, if I created a successful franchise that people started ripping off left, right and center to do their own thing... I'd be responding with the strongest legal artillery at my disposal.
Isn't that what makers of fan films hope for? To have their talent recognised in non profit projects and be given the opportunity to become a professional? The merchandising was a misstep though.
They weren't just hoping to have their talent recognised. They were planning to directly leverage their Axanar fame and success into creating their own studios.
@@Haplo699g Except they were. Much of the money for this film was spent building the studio they would use for other projects. That's a little too close to it being for profit. They're using the Star Trek IP to bring in fans and get them free advertising to their studio with nothing paid to the IP holder. Not saying CBS didn't handle it wrong as well and could have handled it A LOT better, but it wasn't just the merch that crossed the line.
@@Haplo699g Yeah, what Forest Wells said. They weren't just making a fan film. They were planning to indirectly use their fan film to make themselves lots of money.
I've been following Axanar for over a year, and I am a paying member. Unfortunately it is really getting to be a "When will it be Finished"... Every few month we get a couple of minutes spoiler - but that is all.
It is an incontrovertible fact that between the end of the 2014 Kickstarter and the filing of the lawsuit by Paramount/CBS, Alec Peters had FIFTEEN MONTHS to complete the project. Instead of getting right to work when he had the money and available talent, he spent those months doing interviews, going to conventions and selling merchandise.
CBS could have worked with the Axxanar team and regained some credit. What makes me really sad is this was one of Richard Hatch's final roles, a man who gave so much to Sci-Fi. Just the teaser was more Star Trek than anything released since Enterprise imho and the majority of fans agree on the matter from what I've read over the years.
@@RowanJColeman Unfortunately true, says a lot really. They wriggle out of the plagiarised content lawsuit for Discovery, yet any opportunity to please fans without a significant cash injection wasn't up for discussion, makes me sad, not angry.
@@RowanJColeman I don't know if it _never_ could have happened, but in this case I doubt it could have. Both CBS/Paramount and Peters (and I say this as a fan of _Axanar)_ were both just too entrenched in their sides I think from what I can tell. The irony seems that they both came out the other side, after seeing the fallout, wishing that they'd played a bit differently. Had they both not been quite so stubborn, I could see it _maybe_ having happened. P.S. Also, as much as I may love _Prelude_ and pine for the film that never will be, I do agree that CBS/Paramount were totally in the right as far as any legality.
@@scaper8 Think about the precedent that would set though. Suddenly there would be a dozen Star Trek fan films thinking they could be picked up and made "official." That would just make all the legal problems way worse and CBS would quickly lose control of their franchise.
I really have to take you to task on a whole variety of comments you make on this subject. I should start by saying I am no great fan of Peters or his business strategy, and was quite ambivalent about a number of aspects of how he tackled the creation and production of 'Axanar'. That being said; firstly, I think you really need to read up on the background to Garth of Izar. Peters clearly was taking a leaf out of the book of 'The Wrath of Khan' - by resurrecting a character from a TOS episode. In this instance it was not bringing his character up to date (as in "whatever happened to...?") but going back chronologically, to examine the story of this once legendary Starfleet character - before he went mad (and before the period when Kirk & Co. met him). It was a worthy venture. It would have been an interesting addition to the whole original series universe. It isn't controversial in plot because he is fleshing out something we already know a little about. It wouldn't mess with canon, and it wouldn't affect anything that came afterwards. Secondly; I think you are way off the mark by this continuous rant about everybody saying this was going to be 'the best Trek movie ever'. I have followed this saga from the very beginning (and was one of the many thousands of his original crowd-funders myself). People were not saying that. They were saying that Axanar was shaping up to be in the real spirit of the Roddenberry Trek and those shows which were inspired by him. This is absolutely apparent to anybody who understands the style, nature, and feel of Star Trek. It was very authentic. It was measured and intelligent and was clearly a devotional homage to the original series. There's nothing wrong with that. Older fans like me - who have followed the thing since I was a kid in the 1960s know exactly how Star Trek should look and 'be'. Anybody watching 'The Mandalorian' on Disney+, for example, will breathe a sigh of relief that Star Wars is once again in the hands of those who know, love and understand what makes it tick. The same was true of Star Trek in this instance. It was looking magnificent. It was looking like an extended TV film version of the old series. Nobody ever thought or suggested it was going to be as good as 'The Wrath Of Khan', or 'The Undiscovered Country'. But it was very authentic Star Trek that the fans recognised. It was everything that the J.J. Abrams movies were not. You are suggesting a false equivalency by comparing the JJ Trek to Axanar. Abrams has admitted he didn't particularly like Star Trek and nor did he watch it. He wasn't a fan and had no love for it. If you have done any research you must know this. Abrams was trying to turn Star Trek INTO Star Wars (which he did like). And that is why his movies are nonsensical 'fast & furious' rollercoaster popcorn fests. They ARE NOT proper Star Trek because he never intended them to be. The plots are ridiculous and in the case of 'Into Darkness' just plagiarised from TWOK. His movies might have appealed to some newer, younger fans - but largely not to the older established ones. I haven't got time to dissect this junk at length here, however. Conversely, Peters does love Star Trek and has been involved in it in one way or another for a long time. He is a fan and with his professional abilities he can fuse these things together. Thirdly, you have neglected to mention that CBS / Paramount were offered 'Axanar' - virtually on a plate for next to nothing - but snubbed the overtures from Peters & Co. Your comments about corporate conspiracy theories sound more like they were scripted by CBS's lawyers rather than a fair examination of the truth. Fourthly, along with Abrams, the other joker who has ruined Star Trek has been Alex Kurtzman. You dismiss 'canon' as being unimportant. Well maybe it isn't to you. But it certainly is to the vast majority of long-running Trekkies / Trekkers. It is the logical, cohesive and rational universe that everybody has bought into. The utter garbage that is 'Discovery' - and to some extent 'Picard' - trashes what has gone before. It shows massive disrespect to everybody who has ever been involved in Star Trek - before 2009. Whilst, I accepted some of your points as being reasonable - and the whole tone of your presentation as being amiable enough - I really think you have demonstrated that you don't know enough about the ethos of Trek - nor 'Axanar' in particular - to make such sweeping statements as you have done. This issue is actually quite complex....
Wait...you pointed out why they are different yourself there, J. BSG was a total retelling of the story, taking a pulpy 80s show and giving it a more serious and political intrigue drama infused retelling. New Trek is based in exactly the same universe and is supposed to be "In Canon". BSG didn't have those constraints. The two are most definitely not the same. Plus the writing of BSG is stellar while the writing of New Trek is cringe. As of the last episode, now apparently Spock was only the awesome man he was due to his even awesomer sister who is, if you know psychology, the biggest narcissist on TV since House. i'm not a tekkie, i'm a sci fi fan. New Trek is freakin terrible on so many levels it's not even funny....plus they stole the Spore Drive and Space Tardigrade wholesale from someone else.....as they did the idea for DS9 from J.M. Strazynski. i find the people surrounding Trek production morally bankrupt. BSG, again, was a story retold in much more serious manner than its original. It is by far superior.
@@Jkwik90 JJ Trek is its own thing. i accept that. It is most definitely of its time and trying to do things in a more action filmy way. It does what it does and it isn't actively sticking the middle finger to Trekkies. New Trek series though..... >shudder< is most DEFINITELY taking perverse joy in giving Trekkies the finger. Even putting that aside....the writing by itself is just terrible.
fans dismiss things that shit on the heart of the project, the "reimaging" still retained the heart of BG even if they took a more serious approach to than its campy predecessor. it was still Battlestar Galactica at its core. the new trek has nothing to do with actual trek besides names, and the title. they are generic fantasy sci fi in a star trek skin, an edgar suit.
One of the other things that CBS/Paramount didn't like was that Peters had constructed "permanent" sound stages with the money raised...pretty much enabling Peters to launch his own production company...
Axanar couldn't be a "fan film" due to it employing professional actors to play established parts. I'm sorry but Axanar is an unsolicited professional feature film and that is not the definition of a fan film...
You mean like virtually every other fanfilm? New Voyages/Phase II had established names appear, like George Takei and Walter Koenig. "Of Gods and Men" included Tim Russ, Walter Koenig, Garrett Wang and Nichelle Nichols, to name a few. "Renegades" included even more than that, from both main and secondary cast, all of whom reprising their original roles, like Tuvok, Chekov, Dr. Louis Zimmerman and Admiral Paris, among others. And then you got Star Trek Continues (the ones that continued to make episodes that blatantly disregarded half the guidelines for over a year afterward)
@@k1productions87but the “Continues” guys weren’t selling the stuff they made. At the end of the day Holliwierd has totally abused the copyright laws and had lobbyists constantly harass politicians to try extend it past the current 100 yr mark
I'd prefer a full blown mockumentary series, over just another normal film. I love mockumentaries, and wish more would be made set in established universes. Imagine a Star Wars mockumentary about the Clone Wars, but told from the Imperial perspective. Or a BSG mockumentary about the First Cylon War.
The best Star Trek fan film is, IMHO, "Pacific 201". Not only was it painstakingly made and has an identity of its own in a little explored era of the Trek universe, unlike Axanar, the team behind the production kept strictly to a non-profit vision, with no attempts to commercialize the production or hawk its association with Star Trek, like the team behind Axanar unfortunately did. IMHO, Pacific 201 also has more interesting writing and ideas, rather than the seen-it-a-million times pew-pew mega battles with overpowered ships war story of Axanar. If you haven't seen Pacific 201, check it out, along with the three prologue shorts. A great, unpretentious little fan film. I don't know how I'd classify Axanar, but I would classify Pacific 201 as "the real Star Trek", at least when it comes to fan films.
I keep seeing this argument that Axanar was using Kelvin timeline ship design ... they really aren't. I'm old enough to remember when back in the early 80's a company called FASA produced a Star Trek RPG game system and tons of supplements for it. It was true to TOS in all ways and throughout years of production they expanded on many historical events mentioned, if only briefly, in TOS. One of those was the Four Year war with the Klingons and in that supplement they created ship designs. They also released a supplement on it's own which listed and showed all Starfleet ships and a brief history for them all. If you look at them compared to those you see in 'Prelude' they are exactly the same. So who copied who? My feeling is that the guys behind Axanar were being true to FASA's renditions of TOS era ships. Now if JJ decided to copy those then great, but this argument that the Axanar creative team stole from the JJ'verse is unproven and I feel totally wrong.
No you totally misunderstood the enterprise Klingon ridge thing. Only a certain part of the population would lack ridges. Canon matters and discovery doesn’t even try
Also it's explained in the os comics that the Klingon empire is made up of hundreds of planets & that different races of Klingons evolved. Like the voyager ep. were they found klingons in the delta quadrant & they looked bigger & darker skinned.
@@josefa.trinidad4137 " it's explained in the os comics" well thats one of the problems, all big franchise suffer today (appart from producers who give a shit about the product and only think money, money money) It Always the same ST, SW, DW, GB2016 They do something a a film or show, without any knowlage w s e and do it for a mass crowed, that has no idea of "franchise / story law or canon" They got called out by the Nerd-Fans and go full panic mode. "Here is a book that show our Klingons" "Here is a book, why palpatine is back" "Here is a book about knew powers you never seen before" You have to show the stuff on screen. Not anyone is going to read a book. If you cant sell a "beliefable" idea on screen, dont dry it. And yes im aware the os comics are from the 70s but same here...the lead production team had left and the people in charge were like "meh"
I beg to differ, but the truth of the matter is that the new Star Trek stuff, as you put it, is all bad. We forget that when Axanar was announced, and Prelude to Axanar was made available to view, it was at the time where the first season of ST Discovery. Discovery was showing how Star Trek was being so badly mishandled on Discovery. Prelude to Axanar was a new hope. It within cannon.
@@simonoleary9264 you do realize that while he wasn’t for Patrick Stewart he did still go with him as he had control of season 1 of TNG and wasn’t removed until season 2, right?
Gene himself the person was a terrible person the myth of Gene and his legacy is an odd duck. Gene created Star Trek created many many of the concepts still used today he was also took credit stole ideas added his name on scripts and bailed on S3 of TOS then his ideas after the original series are horrible his criticisms of various projects are well illogical and he tried turn the fan base against Star Trek Star Trek had many many hands in its success gene was the father who later became jealous of the new stepfathers raising his “child” And even the most basic research shows gene was a horrible person in real life
I dunno...I can see both sides of things. CBS/Paramount probably have mixed feelings about someone making fan films off of their copyright works, but I also recognize that there is also a true role for fan films, which I often watch and really like. Clearly you cannot sell works, or merch, based off of copyrighted material without the owner's consent or a licensing agreement and this is where Peters et al crossed the line. Honestly, they should have known better. You can see why CBS/Paramount had to step in and say no. Believe me, if you started making and selling Batman merch DC would be all over you in 2 seconds! That having been said, CBS/Paramount overreacted in terms of the "guidelines" they made for fan films. Why on earth would you step on fan enthusiasm for your product?
It's honestly insane that 4 years on after this video, _Axanar_ **STILL** hasn't been released. So much money has just gone straight into a black hole, it seems. At this point I doubt it will ever be released.
I was originally hopeful for Axanar back in the day, I loved the look of it. it showed the design and the look of the original series is completely viable on modern Tv screens . Trek seems to be full of what if's and could have been's
Well, for myself I don't know how much of the Behind-the-Scenes-Axanar drama is true or not. I don't care. For my part, I am forced to judge by results or lack thereof. ELEVEN years, and all we've gotten are promises and bits and pieces of a film but never a completed final product delivered. In a similar timeframe, both James Cawley and Vic Mignona combined delivered nearly twenty Star Trek fan episodes and with far less behind-the-scenes drama, and without getting into public legal battles with Paramount/CBS-Viacom in the process. I keep hearing Axanar Is Coming. Well, so is old age. Alec Peters and his continuing misadventures reminds me of the Orson Welles scene in the movie Ed Wood when Wells (Vincent D'onifrio) comments to Ed about "who's a windbag and who's got the goods".
The split of the Trek Fandom and the UA-cam voices of either side have ruined the show for me. This guy, lore reloaded, and the Fandom menace all sound the same. Everyone speaks so dismissively of each other's concerns and criticisms all the while crying echoes of their own conformation bias. Things no one ever said: "wow, now that you've used a condescending tone to explain how stupid I am for having a different opinion, I totally see your point. Thanks my friend". You can talk all you want on what Roddenberry would have liked or disliked, but I can tell you for certain he wouldn't have appreciated his vision being used to belittle or ostracize each other.
This is the result of people being indoctrinated over several decades with a WWE / Jerry Springer mentality. This is just how people have been trained to act, as more and more TV shows and movies influenced people and groomed them into acting this way. Humans in general, but especially within the western world, have become increasingly polarized on any topic that anyone wants to bring up. Race. Age. Gender. Sexuality. Religion. Politics. Literally anything. From broad categories like that, down to more specific ones like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc -- people in general have a very self loathing, hateful, narcissistic attitude. As much as it would be nice if this attitude was limited only to Star Trek fans, it has become an epidemic within the human race, or at the very least: humans within the western world.
However Axanar started I get the impression, from research I've done and people like Robert Meyer Burnett who were involved, is this became an ego driven mess and an attempt by Alec Peters to cash in on someone else's IP to build himself a studio and profit factory through crowd funding. Prelude IS well done, and I was excited for the actual movie, but siphoning more and more money from the public without anything substantial to show for it that isn't just benefiting him is, if not an outright scam, definitely a less than forthright way of doing things. Also, other fan productions like Star Trek Continues suffered because of this, and those WERE pure passion and love projects. The whole thing is an ugly shame, really, and Alec Peters casting himself as the heroic but humble Garth of Izar says a lot. As far as comparing this to Discovery...there are a LOT of reasons to dislike Discovery, and Michael Burnham being not just a Mary Sue but practically a Messianic figure is only one of them. The Klingons in STD don't match in look or culture, the look of the show and ships is ugly, but those aren't the problem. Michael mutinies, starts a war, goes to jail for it, gets her own captain killed, and then is not only forgiven but rewarded. Michelle Yeoh, who I love as an actress, plays a cannibalistic Mirror Empress who tries to blow up Q'onos, is in general less than trustworthy, and she's not only accepted but CELEBRATED. I liked Lorca, and thought he was interesting, but he's tossed aside rather than explored as a character. I liked Anson Mount as Pike, and I'm actually one of those people that likes Strange New Worlds in spite of some thinking I should turn in my Trek fan card for it. The Red Angel arc is fragmented, nonsensical and a bit insane. The idea of a tormented kid blowing up all the dilithium in the universe in a fit is beyond cartoonish. I only got through season 2, but completely retconning Spock into being learning challenged among other things...I like Saru as a character, I like Tilly sometimes even when she's annoying. I like Michelle Yeoh and Anson Mount. There were tidbits here and there, buried in some really thin character and story arcs, but overall the thing can be unpleasant and baffling, spending more time trying to head canon all the holes and problems than you spent watching it (not in a fun way, either) . And I'm sorry, but Michael is incredibly unlikeable, smug, indifferent to any authority, and just not believable in a Trek setting that makes any sense. Picard...well, Picard himself is insulted, demeaned, scapegoated, and spends half the first season apologizing. I could almost let that go, even with Allison Pill's character being borderline psychotic and dysfunctional, and Raffie making the Trek universe seem racist, classist and dystopian. I guess no one recorded Data's trial in Measure of a Man, because here's the robotic slave race. The Romulans make no sense, the whole AI plot feels like a confused callback to Mass Effect, THE EYEBALL scene, which was apparently literally torturing a character in effigy because of political views outside the show and is a grotesquely unnecessary blight. At least Axanar, or what it was pretending to be, has some integrity. Alec Peters is feeding his ego, sure, but the speech of Admiral Marcus by itself, Richard Hatch...War stories can be inspirational, and two sides fighting a war as ideological as physical has some power and weight. Discovery and Picard (the trailers for Lower Decks put me off, and Prodigy just doesn't seem like Star Trek even if it seems like it could be a fine kid's scifi show) don't feel like much but critical, nihilistic, spiteful, and unpleasant. You could have a very well produced story about futuristic axe-murderers, rapists and serial killers dominating the galaxy, but that doesn't mean it's something I'd want to see. I'm not mad about it, but it is saddening and a bit depressing. Anyway, I think you hit a nerve somewhere. Sorry about the rant. It's just everyone I know of criticizing Discovery and Picard are talking about Roddenberry's idea of a positive human future, not his direct involvement. Yes, DS9 compromised that and I love it, SNW I've liked so far, and I hear Picard Season 3 is good. There are plenty of dystopian futures in scifi, where you can get as vicious and vile as you like. At least leave some hope in Star Trek. As Marcus said, compared to the idea of losing the ideals of the Federation I don't fear the Klingon empire. I don't really fear bad writing and spiteful deconstruction, either, but I don't condone it.
I believe the smooth-headed Klingons in TOS were the augments that resulted from the eugenics experiments in Enterprise which closed that plot hole. I can see how a film can be judged differently than a TV program. Focus on a single character story in a 90 to 120 min film is almost necessary. Focus on a single character in a 9 to 12 hour season can start to feel tedious. I don't know if the Burnham/Mary-sue camp is right or not, but I can see why the two projects can be viewed differently.
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 both looks are canon as Klingons are just as visually diverse as humans some have more pronounced ridges than others, some choose to shave, and some have different skin tones. the idea that there should be one definitive look for klingons is like saying all humans should be white. its an idiotic line of thinking and one treks current show runners have rejected as lower decks show off both TNG and DIS style Klingons i the scene with the klingon part of that city in episode 2.
Where as I don't hate Discovery there's something missing to me that makes Star Trek Star Trek, it would be better if it was just its own IP I feel; my own opinion. And I think why people wanted Axanar was because it was familiar, Kirk and Spock talk about it and Garth is in TOS. I'm self would have liked to have seen that conflict and then maybe followed Garth to the accident that land him in that asylum. But again just own opinion.
It's easy to argue that Axanar would be better than the "official" Star Trek boils down to this: Axanar is being made by people who love Star Trek. JJTrek, STD and Picard are made by people who hate Star Trek.
You can tell this had the original " Spirit " of TREK, compared to the more generic NuTrek series they've been producing lately. NuTrek is more like a Michael Bay production, and they don't stick to continuity....
They should've let them make it. It would have added to the Star Trek world positively. I think people were going to hate Discovery regardless of anything else.
Rowan, I agree with what you said in the video... kinda. Or let's say: I share your concerns. But... Some years ago, when the first details of what STD would be about leaked, I groaned, thinking "not another Klingon war story!" But I can accept Axanar. I can forgive the Klingon head ridges, because most of the rest looks right. If it looks right, it feels right (so to speak). Since it is a fan production, I can forgive the absence of a great or deep story. The documentary format of "Prelude" also was intriguing. It says "narrated by John Gill" in the titles. So, together with Garth of Izar, we have two of the Federation's 23rd century madmen involved in the story. The character of Garth works because the fans know he will ultimately fail. Not in this war, but later... Maybe, just maybe the story isn't so shallow, after all? What makes me (and many others, I suspect) dislike STD is that it doesn't feel like Trek and that is due to the writing and design. It doesn't look right, so it doesn't feel right. Imagine being a fan of history and you're watching a new movie about the Napoleonic wars, but the soldiers are wielding AK47s and M-16s (or whatever). Or imagine Sherlock Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls, but he has a jetpack. That's the jarring feeling I get trying to watch STD. Now, I could perhaps accept it as its own new thing, but the internal continuity is also very flawed. And yes, I'm aware that previous Trek shows had their problems as well. But this was compensated by clever stories and likeable characters. Except maybe for Saru, the crew of the Discovery isn't even interesting (and I liked original Giorgiou from the pilot episode). It's just got no redeeming qualities.
What is interesting is that the ships and general look in the AXANAR production have much more in common with JJ Abram's Kelvin timeline than TOS. Even the cities shown look more like those in Into Darkness. AXANAR repurposed the design language of the 2009 film and I think people responded positively to that just as they did with the first Star Trek reboot film. Discovery did not do that with it's look and technology. Had they also gone with something more like AXANAR then maybe fans would have responded more favorably. Instead, they went with something that looked like it should have been in some generic Mass Effect ripoff and people didn't like it. In sum, while neither Discover or AXANAR are the "true" Star Trek, AXANAR is more rooted in the preestablished design language of Trek and feels more authentically Trek because of it.
The Discovery Klingons might not bother me if they weren't SO different. And just plain annoying. I hate the way they look. I hate the way they sound. I hate what they do, and what they say. The rest of the aesthetic changes Discovery made don't bother me though.
It was the slow talking that really really got to me in the 1st season of Discovery. It was tedious AF. Klingons are supposed to be warriors, not Eeyore from Winnie The Pooh. I've grown to love Discovery but the first season (like TNG) is a real slog to get through.
Of course Garth of Izar is a mary sue in Axanar. The producer cast himself in the role , the sole amateur while all the other actors are professionals, and all the Prelude does is have these talking heads telling us how he is bold, awsome, etc,. In the cannon, this is a character that Kirk admires and will say to him " You were the finest student at the Academy, the finest Starship Captain. You were the prototype, the model for the rest of us". It's over-the-top, clearly a vanity project for the producer. At least Sonequa Martin-Green didn't cast herself into Trek and wrote the scripts that make her the most important person to Spock and others!
Before watching this video i had only heard opinion on this subject that was anti CBS, so I appreciate this analysis of the subject. I don't always agree with your opinions, for example I value cannon a lot, though accept even before 2009 it hasn't always been followed e.g. Zefran Cochrane. Nevertheless I appreciate your perspective and hope you continue to challenge my assumptions by presenting facts in a balanced way.
IMHO cannon is not important as whatever studio has bought the rights seem to set 'cannon' and they're usually just suits attempting to make money out of your passion without really caring about it. Instead of 'cannon' replace it with 'internal consistency'. If something is in the history then you can't change it or forget about it because its inconvenient to a new story. You must remain consistent with what has been established before.
The question of true trek basically can boil down to this. Respecting canon just shows you did the research. So many people working on new shows hate the IP and want to make their own stories. But they can't get their own stories funded so they end up having to work on legacy IP. So it pisses people off when things are changed with no respect for the material. If they don't bother to get the easy details right why can we expect anything else to be good? New trek is nihilistic and mean-spirited. There's no hope like Trek used to have. The theme from axanar was being able to fight to defend the ideals of the federation without discarding those ideals. That's from the fed president speech. You can do war stories stupidly or intelligently. People like the intelligent approach. That's what is supposed to define Trek. That it often gets very dumb is frustrating but the ideal remains good.
First I was so hyped about this and backed in on Kickstarter and Indigogo and the prelude was incredible! But I've got the impression that all that happened the last year was a lot begging for more money and nothing really happened production wise :/ It's all merch merch and more merch. Even the last trailer wasn't showing anything really new. Kind of sad. We'll see what finally comes out of it.
Suddenly makes sense why Burnett is so negative about everything Trek from Discovery onwards. (there is plenty to dislike, but theres also great stuff too)
@@SC-mq1eh not a trekkie, but simply a man of good taste, with an intellect high enough to see social engineering crammed into our intertainment. btw, roddenberry's just a man,you know. no need to invoke him here, as it is not an argument. Roddenberry had a good idea,startrek...and it thrives despite his best effort. you know that,right?
@@monsieurdubitatif8567 lol - obvy you aren't a trekkie or you and you're superior intellect(and btw, "im laughing at your superior intellect") would know that its creator and the franchise have been trying to cram social engineering into it's "intertainment" since the 60s
When I saw Prelude to Axanar and heard about the proposed feature film I thought "Oh God! Not another Federation goes to war story!" They did it with DS9, which was fine, but then they did it when Enterprises's ratings were suffering, and all the novels started being about the Federation at war, or a deep, dark conspiracy within the Federation. YYYAAAAWWWNNN!!!!!!!!
Exactly. I prefer fan films and fan series that try something more interesting than just another war story, regardless of the era of Trek. What I liked about Pacific 201 in particular is that though it touched upon themes of war, especially the trauma from a past war, it looked at the whole thing through a lens of how to move on from the repercussions of that conflict. Including how to get back into scientific exploration of space and the idealism necessary for it, rather than being obsessed with paranoia, espionage, enemy movements, and all that...
Prelude is better than modern STD and Picard story-wise. But yes, Peters put his foot in it with the merchandise. It didn't help CBS/Paramount that they were bringing out their own new tv series around the same time as the fans saw a conspiracy happening to shut down any other version of ST.
There is a big difference in having 1 central character in a standalone movie and 1 central character in a TV show. You can have episodes focused on one particular person but the entire show? The movie is basically a 2 part episode without subtitles in the middle.
With all do respect to your content that I thoroughly enjoy, I feel like the ACTUAL “truth of Axanar” stops with the fact that they straight-up violate copyright law by using an fan film that doesn’t even exist to profit and sell merchandise off of a well-known property that they did not own or have any licensing rights. Like full-stop - they broke the law there and should have known better. Whether CBS and Paramount could have handled it in a way that had better optics is another story (wouldn’t have surprised me if they originally sent a cease & desist and the production just ignored it - seeing as they were already being brazenly reckless anyway). But they own the IP and have every right to stop others from profiting off of it. The only way you can truly go from there in defending that is to have a much broader, anarchistic conversation about the existence of copyright law in general. But that would require recognizing that CBS/Paramount’s behavior on the matter wasn’t uniquely nefarious but rather as completely normal and acceptable in the system they exist under... capitalism. Personally, I think the jabber about comparing it to Discovery and other post-2009 Star Trek is kinda pointless and only distracts from what the actual issue was. Not to mention the fact that the fan production’s irresponsible profiting attempts ended up actually hurting other Trek fan projects that were playing fairly by forcing upon stricter, meaner guidelines. Like a school kid who starts hurting people with a toy on the playground, causing the toy to be forever taken away, ruining it for the other kids.
Every major fan film project at the time was selling merch and memorabilia, including Renegades (which was a Tim Russ and Walter Koenig project, not Alec Peters) and Star Trek Continues. STC also making four MORE episodes AFTER the guidelines were posted... episodes that broke about half of said guidelines rather blatantly.
I think it's a pity that a third way couldn't be found to get fan films made, instead of this adversarial attitude. I get studios want to protect thier ip's but they would garner a lot of good will by say giving the project some help but letting them know they can't just do whatever they wish, without the express permission of the studio and giving the studio credit where due. I imagine there would be a lot of people at these studios willing to help out, without overshadowing the fan made side of things, evryone could benifit if it was done well and in good faith. Just my two penith worth.
The fact of the matter really comes down to this. CBS was okay with fan productions, there was generally agreed upon standards for what fan productions would be. Alec Peters and his group took advantage of those leeways given by the studio so they can profit themselves. And in the end because of their greediness, they harmed all other fan productions in the process. All they had to do was abide by the standards, but they had to push and try to step across the line. Rules are rules for a reason, if one does not like then rules then of course call for change, but know that when you violate those rules, there are consequences. I do not feel bad for Alec Peters and the people who helped him make those decisions, I feel sorry for other fan film creators that they have to endure the consequences of someone else's bad decision making, and I feel sorry for fans who could have gotten something cool to watch. At the end of the day, given Alec Peters' behavior now with not paying people, suing anyone who disagrees with him, blocking out fans who've even supported him before when they dissent, and still trying to make money out of this production even against agreed upon settlement by the court, it is clear that he does not have good intentions and quite frankly never did. Or else he would not so ridiculously try to claim in court proceedings that his FAN FILM has nothing to do with the Star Trek IP. Let's not forget that even actors like Tony Todd eventually left the project because of concerns about Alec Peters and what was going on with the financials.
We seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room..... CBS All Access CBS was not about to let full scale fan productions of professional-looking quality to continuing while they were pushing their pay subscription service. They needed a show trial, and someone to make an example of to scare everyone else off. Who better than the most prominent fanfilm production featured, and one that took place in the same era as they intended to set Discovery in. Speaking of violating the rules, it is interesting how nobody points any fingers at Star Trek Continues for making four more full episodes AFTER the Guidelines were set... episodes that themselves violated nearly half of said guidelines. We also forget that the lawsuit from CBS reached a settlement that allowed Axanar to continue, but not as a feature film, but instead two 15-minute episodes.
WHY DIDN'T CBS JUST MAKE AXANAR OFFICIAL?
I keep seeing people ask this. That would never have worked. It would've set the precedent that if your fan film gets enough attention it can become official. Imagine trying to manage a franchise when a bunch of randoms are throwing shows at you which you didn't ask for. Also, CBS/Paramount had no reason to do such a thing. People were using their IP without permission for profit. End of story.
SOME LINKS:
Discord server: discord.gg/BYxQNuD
Gaming Channel: ua-cam.com/channels/4AQjWVhQBOoHlOrKn_SJqA.html
Second Channel: ua-cam.com/channels/uRTWD6C2lqy-y-0HMwRoNQ.html
what you refer to is called "licensing" and it happen all the time.
are you a corporated shill or what? this is nonsence, as it would,in fact, cut drastically into production cost and manpower, thus helping to keep the franchise alive and well...
question: is the franchise alive and well at the moment? no, it is dying...
@@monsieurdubitatif8567 "It is dying"
Because... you know, a show three seasons in with a fourth on the way, two shows currently working on their second season, and three other shows currently in development means the franchise is dying...
Shows are done like that all the time and screenplays and books are written outside of the company and submitted for possible use. There are numerous production companies that make shows for all sorts of places. Ideas, screenplays and films are submitted all the time to companies like CBS and Paramount and that is how they get fresh content. The problem these days is they seem to be trapped in groupthink and have terrible management with awful skills that can only choose to put out sheer garbage these days. I know people that work in the film industry and they are terrified seeing their industry die as Netflix and other similar services have allowed the creation of low budget but better quality material that is out competing the old studio models. People are cutting the cable cord and going all online to the detriment of traditional film companies and TV stations and CBS/Paramount and many other traditional TV/Movie companies keep trying to break off and make their own streaming services that are failing as their model doesn't work anymore and they can't put out good content anymore with the SJW idiots they are hiring to produce content. Netflix, Amazon, UA-cam etc. have plenty of SJW garbage too but then there is lots of other content to choose from so you get more free market choice on those services compared to the limited garbage offered at the more traditional and limited thought niche of the old networks and companies. Movie chains are going out of business as attendance has tanked due to the garbage Hollywood has been putting out. Game of Thrones was my last straw with cable and I cut it off for good. The Last Jedi was the last straw for me with Hollywood and I haven't been back to a theater since. A couple of episodes of STD was enough to know it was NOT Star Trek just like one episode of Picard was enough to see it was terrible too. The Expanse and The Orville are currently the best options out there and actually can tell stories that offer entertainment to most people. The free market has spoken and CBS/Paramount needs to turn Trek over to people that know what they are doing to make what the fan base wants. STD has its fans but they are mainly not Star Trek fans and they often don't even know about Starr Trek or have plans to watch any of the older shows so they are just watching just another random show. Overlord DVD's channel sums all this up and more nicely.
@@ThrashMetallix the ratings show they are destroying it. The fan base has abandoned it.
@@ThrashMetallix yeah, and since mcdonalds is popular,that mean that they serve healthy food...invalid argument, and you know it.
beside, it is on all access for a reason... and you seem to gobble up their bullshit to the point.
reality is that their numbers are pathetic, it is almost as if no one watch it, except the poor suckers that have been fooled into that cbs access DISASTER...
It was the hatred for Disco that breed the love for Axanar.
Let's remember that Gene Roddenberry was not a fan of Patrick Stewart taking the role of Picard. He actively hated it at first, but he also decided to trust the production staff around him.
Also (from the half of the second season of TNG) when Rodenberry got sick, did not participate and left to others, that alone saved TNG and made it the probably the best Start Trek series. The first two season, especially the first had a lot of issues, during the time he was dictating.
Gene’s vision of Trek failed far more often than it succeeded.
Let’s not. To say your point as something we agree at face value, I’m not buying. Go prove Gene hated Patrick Stewart then I’ll believe. I never agree with the mouth open that start’s by saying, “You will agree, or Don’t you agree, or you must agree, or Let’s Remember, etc, etc.” Prove it, otherwise Gene was happy. The last words Gene did say in his last video was that, “There are infinite stories to be told, my god you are talking about the Universe and Humans in it”. Now when ppl say Gene hated this and that, it does not fit the over arching narrative of his vision. He put and African American communication officer, an Alien, Asian, Russian, Scotsman, Irish transporter chief, and Country Doctor etc. on the same Ship. When I grew space was always a ship of White guys in space suites on a Rocket traveling to planets fighting Bug Eyed monsters with a beautiful White woman for eye candy screaming from endless fear then half the crew is killed and they struggle back to earth all the time. That’s what Gene hated, this notion that Space travel and exploration was life threatening everywhere man went or goes in Space.
Because he was bald and gene didn't think baldness was going to be a thing in the future
Yeah; don't forget he originally wanted Lloyd Bridges as Captain Kirk, too. He may be the luckiest TV producer of all time. It all came together with great writers and co-producers.
It still saddens me that we lost Richard Hatch, in Battlestar Galactica (2004-08) he was the most compelling and in-depth, flawlessly fleshed out villain of any tv show I have ever seen.
To see him as a Klingon villain would have been the best antagonist in a Star Trek since General Chang and Gul Dukat.
He was not a villain you are confused
@@elizabethjansen2684 he most certainly was a villain in BSG (2004-2008) there was no confusion in this.
@@DANRYX i watched it growing up and I don't think so. His character was captain Apollo a fighter pilot and adama son. So no he wasn't a villain. Google it nowhere is he a villain. Baltar was, adama's second in command was coopted according to the reboot( can't remember his name at the moment.
@@elizabethjansen2684 I'm referring to his portrayal of the newly created character of Tom Zarek (terrorist/political activist) in the 2004-2008 sci fi channel reboot series.
He played as Apollo (protagonist) in the original series from the 70s.
Although he was a villain in the newer series, he had a lot of political views that I agreed with over the main protagonists. The way they wrote the character of Zarek and how Richard Hatch performed that role is one of the best acting jobs of any show I have seen to date. You never knew when he was being genuine or plotting something evil/selfish, it made him such a compelling and complex character to watch from start to finish.
I hope you have a chance to watch the reboot, at the very least, to watch Richard Hatch's performance (his best and most dynamic role he has ever done in my opinion)
@@DANRYX it also lists that character as a former terrorist but vice president under baltar. So not an angel but not exactly a villain. Rather like JR Ewing in Dallas. Hatch was a very good actor and pushed for the new series no doubt he wanted a meatier role than a goody two shoes.
To be honest, the path they tried to follow using Axanar’s take on the Star Trek universe to launch their company and future projects reminds me a lot of how Rooster Teeth started using the Halo universe for it’s Red vs Blue series. Considering how enormous Rooster Teeth became, it makes you think how different things might have been if Bungie had taken a more CBS approach to it’s copyrights and trademarks(and while in their rights, what might have happened if CBS had come to some sort of mutually beneficial agreement with Axanar).
It think the reason the Rooster Teeth and Halo situation worked was two fold. One Red vs Blue was clearly a parody and as such was closer to fair use than Axanar ever was. And two Microsoft was at the time focused on Halo as games and some novels. I think today with Microsoft pushing for a Halo TV show, some one trying for something similar to Red vs Blue would see more pushback from Microsoft, as they now see Halo as a multimedia IP.
The gaming industry self regulates the standard for fair use. In reality essentially any video, website, or media using using artwork, assets, or even synops'ing the story of a game could be considered a form of infringement. However because of the state of home video games in the mid 80s quality control was essentially non existent. Games like Custer's Revenge which is essentially about being a homicidal rapist cowboy in the wild west. Congress stepped in 1994 and crazy story pass a whole lot of incredibly overreaching and fortunately mostly un-constructional legislation that almost tanked the entire video game industry in the US. From then on it has been the unwritten rule between video game developers to try to not engage consumers in the courts. It hasn't turned out very well at any point and attracts a lot of unwanted negative media which the industry already gets enough of.
Live by the fans die by the fans is basically it. Honestly a lot of the video game industry is like this where not exactly legal practices are largely commonplace. Like non compete or non disclosure contracts are the prime example of this right now. It is totally illegal but extremely common. What are you going to do sue the company thinking about hiring you? good luck buddy!
@@ipie13579 Except synopses, and screen shots are and have always been protected fair use when needed for news and commentary. That's not the video game industry, that's basic copyright law that applies to all media.
Also, as someone who was actually around and paying attention in 1994, there was no congressional legislation of video games. It was threatened and hearing were held, but the industry forming the ESRB shut that down.
Rooster Teeth is Red vs Blue, RWBY and a bunch of shows nobody ever watches.
The difference here is that rooster teeth just used halo to make a comedy movie /series but not to make a halo movie. They used assets from bungie, Microsoft and EA titles but never made the productions about games they used. It was simply a platform to tell their story
Space battles were never the problem. Continuity, character development, acting quality too.
Incedentaly I just got a 24 hour suspension for a Facebook group having got in to it a bit with Alec Peters. I challenged and maintained the content of this video as substantiated and corroborated by every official source available. However Mr. Peters was quite vocal with his response which contained the quote “CBS told us point blank that it was because Axanar was too good and that people would confuse it with the real Star Trek”
Anyway, I got a ban and then the post was shut down because a lawyer joined the frey and asked if there was anywhere that he could read the transcripts. It’s a shame that pride bettered humility as Mr Peters really showed he’s quite talented and sadly lives in a delusional ego trip.
You keep saying "copyright" when most of the issue is about "trademark", both are "intellectual property" law, and while some of Paramount/CBS' copyright was violated, more of this was centered around trademark
Most people get the two confused. Here’s the big difference. You really don’t have to prove a Trademark violations in court. A thing is your registered Trademark. You hold title to it and are the expert at identifying your trademark. You can seize merchandise for a Trademark violations etc. unlike with Copyright you don’t have to prove each element of a violation in court. The trademark is registered and granted. But it is more limited. For example “Star Trek” or “Klingon” are Trademarks. The Federation/Starfleet and Klingon logos are Trademarked. Basically a Trademark are things that uniquely identify your brand. The story elements and design aesthetic of Axanar run afoul of copyright. And Trademarks do not expire so long as you exercise and protect them.
He keeps saying copyright because all the litigation was about copyright infringement. None of the litigation in the Axanar case was trademark. A federal judge found Alec Peters and Axanar both financially benefitted from Star Trek IP, and that they had objectively infringed on the Trek copyright. Certainly you could make a trademark case, too, but that's not what CBS/Paramount chose to do.
@@andysantacruz Calling it "Star Trek: Axanar" is a trademark infringement. And the name Axanar, which is a battle/place with origin in a TOS script only (not real-world connection) is also trademark eligible, just like the terms "Battlestar" and "X-Wing". Since they are also original expression in writing (script), they are copyrightable, too.
@@budbert6988 No one is saying CBS/Paramount *couldn’t* have gone after Axanar on trademark claims. The point is, they didn’t. They sued on copyright grounds, and that’s all.
Arguably, the copyright claims were stronger than the trademark ones. Why? Trademark requires the holder to constantly and vigilantly protect its marks everywhere it sees it being incorrectly used. If Alec Peters’ lawyers were to defend him on trademark, they would’ve had a strong defense in claiming that CBS/Paramount had allowed its “Star Trek” mark to be exploited for decades by fan productions, and that it had arguably released its hold on the mark. Copyright law requires no such diligence on the part of the holder. The copyright owner has absolute control over their intellectual property; they can’t lose that control even if they look the other way when others infringe on it. They also have the right to enforce their copyright selectively, arbitrarily, even capriciously; point is, they get to choose who, how and where to defend their copyright. That simply isn’t the case with trademark.
@@andysantacruz Not necessarily true - the prevailing criteria in judging a trademark case is "confusion in the marketplace" for comparable products. The production value of early fan productions could not be confused - as production values went up, they crept up to the non-infringement threshold, especially as "look-and-feel" is also established as trademark-able. No one can credibly claim that the trademark was abandoned - they have a licensing unit after all, as did Paramount for the movies.
I'm a big fan of your very reasonable takes on Star Trek. Loudness culture can be so tiresome.
Precisely ! Well said.
They were trying to start a for-profit company (the studio) off of exploiting intellectual property they DID NOT OWN. I don't even understand the fans who defend this thing. Well, I understand them, because they think they have ownership over the property.
They don't.
Even beyond that, Alec Peters sure seems to have a long history of dubious fan-centric business ventures that he really doesn't have the legal right to pursue.
frankly, we just have another example of fandom ignoring logic to play the victim card.
Love your channel, BTW. As if all the comments today weren't evidence enough.
Well said ! ! !
Aye, the first sentence says it all. Unless someone either owns the rights or has been granted the rights to a particular property, they should not exploit it commercially, on a for-profit basis. That's just basic logic and respect for the legal situation.
Truth.
No, it’s not this production, it’s that the rights holders went nuclear on all fan productions by making the rules quite draconian. Go read them. Not longer than 15 minutes, never use an actor that’s ever been in a real ST production before, etc.
The rules made something like the incredible “Star Trek Continues” completely impossible (though they did alert that production that while they would have to stop, they could finish the eps they were still producing.)
There’s no question they had a valid beef here but they could have handled it far better. It’s not “bad optics” to go nuclear like they did against their most dedicated fans, it’s insane.
IANAL, but it seems like they could have issued less draconian rules, something like “if you sell merch, we’ll sue you”, “if you raise more funds than needed for the basic production, it must be returned or given to us, or whatever (it’s almost certain any SAG actor would have to be paid minimum union rates, that sort of thing)”.
These 20 minutes felt more like Star Trek than the current crop do. Feelings of course are subjective, but the visual theme, mood and tone go a long way. As a movie, who knows. But as a documentary style movie, it would have been better.
Is it just the looks? No. Mood. Tone. And perhaps spirit - the soft scores.
The newer stuff is uncanny valley. Cannon, but somehow wrong.
Just my opinion.
Why accept "cannon" when you have suits interested in selling you a story setting cannon and not people interested in the story itself. I agree with you that this 20 minutes feels more like Star Trek than much of the "cannon" produced nowadays.
I think it's okay not to accept the new stuff as canon.
One thing about the Klingons lacking the smooth heads of the TOS Klingons in Prelude to Axanar. We only see the one, played by Richard Hatch, and his character is doing an interview decades later. At that point, the Klingons, even those with smooth heads, had ridges again. For example, Kor, played by John Colicos in both TOS and Deep Space Nine, had ridges when his character returned in DS9, when he had a smooth head in TOS. Its not a tough jump to make to assume they fixed the issue that started in Enterprise by then, at least for those high up in the military such as Kor.
Within 30 years, Kang has ridges, when he encounters Sulu and the Excelsior.
Fanwanking like this is the root of the problem
The end of the second episode of Enterprise that gives the lack of foreheads origin has a line about forehead restoration surgery becoming a thing.
I haven't seen this fan film but in the clip he shows he seems to have small ridges and TOS like facial hair.
It looks like whoever's decision it was was trying to go for somewhere between TOS and TNG level makeup.
@@lars573 Thanks, I knew this was somewhere but couldn't remember the source. In the novels, of course, the problem was a disease called Imperial Plague and the Klingon Rulers were essentially quarantined on Kronos so they could keep their head ridges....like Hatches character was presented....
To paraphrase Tali from Mass Effect 2, "I understand. I do not agree with you, but I understand". I actually don't hate Discovery or the Abrams movies, but I DO hate a lot of the choices made in making them, especially the aesthetics, and I still think Axanar would FOR ME have been far more my cup of Earl Grey Hot haha. Doesn't mean I can't see where you're coming from too though
Mr. Spock had said that long before Tali. I believe on two separate episodes, "A Taste of Armageddon" and "The Way to Eden" (but I could be mistaken on the second one. Its not an episode I watch very often lol)
I think people use the term "real" Trek because it seems to hold a strong continuity with the previous production in terms of aesthetic, hell they even have Soval in it.
And Discovery has Pike, Number 1 and Spock, but some people say that’s just blatant fan service.
@@barkasz6066 Yep. The worst enemy of the show is the fans themselves.
A comment from the future, but I can honestly say the first season of Strange New World was excellent, and it finally feels like the official productions have found their footing. If other Trek is at least at that level, then the rights holders are finally investing in the right direction for the overall brand.
@@ZemplinTemplar
Pity they've turned the Gorn into Xenomorphs.
Didn't age well. NU Trek is horrible. Simple, dumb, shallow. No vision. No future.
Alex Peters is a con artist .One thing I'm not sure many know is he was trying to do paid screenings .Prelude to a what was good ,But using fans to pay yourself and buy yourself a tesla .....I wish paramount would of crushed peters
You are hitting on one of my biggest pet peeves with the fan discourse around modern Star Trek! I've been a hyper obsessed fan of Star Trek since the 90s. I grew up on it. Whats sad for me now is that I try my hardest to NOT talk about Trek anymore because I have to put up with negative bad faith criticism from one group and overt sycophancy from another. Personally I have serious problems with all 3 modern Trek series so far. Without going into major/annoying detail i will simply state I have issues with concept, writing, canon continuity (I know, I know, WHO CARES right? ; ) and what feels like an onscreen preoccupation with Star Trek from a trivial, mainstream pop culture POV. I've been quite bummed out by all 3 new shows as with each of them I was genuinely excited and hopeful I would enjoy them all, but the opposite has happened.
As a long time fan I also recognize that every Trek series had weak to bad 1st and 2nd seasons and eventually found their footing along the way. It's this fact/tradition that keeps me from quitting Trek altogether. Meanwhile over the past 3 years or so when looking for like minded fans to openly and constructively discuss modern Trek I have become so sick and tired of THE WAY people talk about Trek .
I express my negative issues with Trek, as well as my positive and 9 times out of 10 I get frustrated by the asinine responses I get...
"You don't LOVE ALL of modern Trek above any and every thing that came before it? You dont think all of it is THE best example of sci-fi since the genres birth!? Well you are just an old, out of touch, angry, lazy, bitter old (fill in the egregious insult that ends with -ist) that doesn't matter as a fan! Its no longer made for YOU, so get over it!" or...
"You dont think every person, concept, or motivation behind modern Trek is evil and makes for the worst TV shows of all time? Obviously you're a PC beta, virtue signaling, troglodytic interloping cuck trying to turn Trek into something it should never be and you'd know that if you were a real fan!"
well done for digging around for the positives in new trek... i could only come up with saru and well the effects are good.... I've gone through the stages of grief with star trek.... tos was something that was always there... it would be on and you'd be aware of it. and i always loved watching the movies when they were on tv. but i wasn't hooked until i was a teenager and watched tng.. then ds9 followed then voyager.. I didn't catch enterprise because by that point in the uk the bbc weren't buying shows.. so it was on channel 4 and i never caught it... Now I'll admit not every episode blew my mind and there were the ones that you'd rather skip but I never felt that way about an entire series.... Now when they announced a new trek series i was ready for it.... so excited and when i pressed play on discovery within 5 minutes I paused it and asked my wife... what have they done??? what is this?? now you can call me entitled fanboy if that makes you feel better... Discovery repulsed me.... And that's fine.... as we know this isn't being written for entitled tng fans.... this is a modern take on star trek and if you don't like that you can take a walk.... so i do, i watch 90's star trek on netflix... I'm not a member of the fandom menace but this version of star trek does nothing for me... i find it aggravating to watch.... it took me about 7 months to watch season 1.... its the only tv show where I've had to pause or just switch off {sometimes multiple times in an episode) because i just cant stomach watching any more... I had the same response to the first episode of Picard and didn't bother with the rest of the series... For a while i was one of those people who would say its just not star trek.... which is an open goal really because it gives way to exactly what Rowan does which is point out all the contradictions between all the other series.. and then you get to the eventual oh i get it it's because the main character is a black woman..... what i mean is, like you say the defence of discovery is usually you obviously have never watched star trek then.....
Then I started watching Jessie Gender and Steve Shives, who in one of there videos praising how brave new trek is because they are deconstructing star trek and building it back up for modern audiences.... When I heard that a lightbulb went off in my head.... because at that moment I realised... yes they do understand that new trek isn't like classic star trek... now a deconstructed cheese cake is still a cheese cake by its name, but I'd rather just have a cheese cake... and that's how i feel about star trek... so, new trek can deconstruct star trek in what ever way it wants, I really have no desire to watch it. not for any moral grand standing... it just does nothing for me... in the same way that EastEnders or the real housewives of Cheshire do nothing for me, so I don't watch those shows either.... I wasn't expecting this video to turn into another - If you don't like discovery you're an idiot video aswell......
Interesting. While I have certainly encountered many of your former examples I haven't run into the latter. I've heard plenty of "the bad is so bad its not worth the small gems that get left in accidentally", but I haven't heard old school caring enough to say that there is NOTHING good, just that the bad makes it unwatchable.
@Langy M Neely "Well you are just an old, out of touch, angry, lazy, bitter old (fill in the egregious insult that ends with -ist) that doesn't matter as a fan! Its no longer made for YOU, so get over it!" Oh, I criticised Discovery on another video, and got the race/misogyny card pulled on me. Apparently, the reason I don't like Discovery is because I am a racist and misogynist so I have a problem with a strong black female lead... Yeah, right. This will is be why my two favourite ST series are DS9 and Voyager 🙄 Go Figure!
@@davidanderson4091 Really depends on what season of discovery first season first half didn't like that much.
2nd season with pike was pretty good even though their enemy control wasn't that good. Though a bit too much focus on a few characters.
3rd Feels more like they where building a new series
4th actually feels really good is more balance between ds9 short stories and main story thread. Also a lot more focus on other characters in the 4th season.
@Alex Romeli No, it's logic in tandem with emotion. I don't want to gatekeep or anything, but there's a reason the first season was centered around discussions between McCoy (the emotional), Spock (the coldly rational) and Kirk (who tried to make the best decision with the options available).
100% agree that Alex threw the fandom under the bus by merchandising the project and I understand that CBS and Paramount had to protect their IP, but they really could have just arranged to take over production of Axanar and launch it themselves, given that every single project they've launched since then has been either garbage or garbage adjacent. Yes it might have set a precedent, but as a multimillion dollar company you have the power to just say no to any projects you don't like. So while I don't believe that Axanar outshining the official projects in the works was THE factor in the company's decision to rewrite the guidelines, I suspect that at least someone in the company was concerned with how it would look when fans could create better feature length material than they could.
Whether "Axanar" would've been the true Star Trek, or not, all I know is the consequence of their actions killed "Star Trek Continues." And THAT fan production was exceptional Star Trek.
That was such a great production, it was incredibly well made and was such a shame they had to stop.
I was going to make the same point, Axanar pushed the boundaries set by CBS/Paramount much to far and brought about a much more restrictive policy on what fan productions could do killing off the likes of Star Trek Continues.
Uhm... not quite. Star Trek Continues still made at least four full episodes AFTER the Guidelines were put into effect. Episodes that violated about half of them. Not the least of which being more than 15 minutes, being more than 2 parts, having "Star Trek" in the main title rather than "A Star Trek fan production" as a subtitle, AND including established actors from Star Trek.
Continues didn't just halt. They got all the way through the story arc they intended for the complete series,... so they had FINISHED their work. Its not like they left on a cliffhanger, its not like they just abruptly concluded,... so I don't know what people mean by "such a shame they had to stop"... they reached their end goal.
@@k1productions87 You are incorrect. They had those episodes in the can before the guidelines were put into full effect. They would've made many more episodes if they'd been allowed.
@@leslauner5062 I agree. I Heard that there were actually more STC Episodes planned
Axanar is back into production. Scene by scene is being filmed. It's slowly coming together. One of the biggest holes is re-assigning the role of the Klingon leader Karn. With the death of Richard Hatch, the groundwork that had been produced with him has to be re-shot with another actor. There was already many references to Karn in the initial filming that entirely replacing the Karn character was not a good option. Sad that Mr. Hatch will not be around to see this project completed.
My problem with Dsicoverys Klingon war has ships that are just huge like bigger than the Enterprise D in some cases, and without a good story Disco haas very little left to offer
I would not say Axanar is not real Star Trek. Rather as a long time fan, Axanar is closer to original Star Trek than anything which has come out of Paramount recently. In my opinion and full disclosure I donated to Axanar, I think Axanar raised too much money for a film on someone else's intellectual property. I believe using the funds of Axanar to create a business by which Alec Peters would profit from was a legitimate violation of Paramounts rights. Later.
Just found this, I know it's an old video but I thought I'd comment.
1. The legality of axanar is as you said cut and dry. The question should not be is it legal (strictly speaking no), the question is in my mind is should copyright laws have this much reach. The original intent of copyright was to insure that a creator could fairly profit of his or her creation during his or her lifetime. Today copyright laws insure that the corporations that employ creative people can profit off said creative people's creations in perpetuity. Original copyright laws covered the idea of creative people taking previous ideas and expanding on them. It allowed for new interpretations of older material, such as the many riffs on shakespare, or what disney did with fairy tales. Or for example what Peters had done with prelude to axanar. Disney especially has had a big hand in changing these laws. If copyright laws were in the 1920's what they are today, disney would have never gotten off the ground.
2. I liked prelude because as you said it was more visually familiar, it had a great cast, and it was a combination of ken burns style documentary and star trek. 2 more hours of something like that would have been fantastic. It seems that Peters had made the creative decision to pivot to a typical bridge style drama going by what axanar gathering storm.
3. There is something deeper going on that was touched on in this video. So many actors distanced themselves from the project. Gary Graham, tony todd, and pretty much everyone distanced themselves from axanar and alex peters. Be that because of some kind of toxic element introduced by peters or because CBS/paramount was threatening to destroy the careers of these working actors. I don't know.
4. I tend to give Peters the benefit of the doubt in general. Some of you, a few of you might be aware that there used to be a privately run star trek museum in the little town of vulcan alberta. It was on the verge of financial collapse and Peters stepped in and saved it at the last minute. Ultimately it was not meant to be because the museum went under. But I had visited the museum a few times, the fellow who owned it was a fantastic fellow and I will always be grateful that Peters stepped in and helped out.
I 100% understand why Paramount/CBS shut Axanar down. You have to be extremely naive of both the entertainment industry and the Axanar production to believe that the studios were wrong to stop this.
However, Prelude to Axanar is still my favourite 21 minutes of Star Trek produced since the 2009 film. I'm not going to justify that opinion, it's just my own enjoyment (or more recently lack of enjoyment) whilst watching modern Star Trek.
I'm kinda late for this whole ordeal but if you ask me they (CBS/Paramount) should at the very least asked for them (the Axanar team end the people involved, investors, actors and so on) to join them to make this a reality along with the Discovery..."thing"...before suing them.
Instead of the option of this possibility, or even something better than this vague idea we (and by "we" I mean we as a fanbase, they as CBS/Paramount and the producers and the Axenar team and actors) lost the oportunity to have another great fan-made production and ended up with 2 horrible series.
It's not about naivity, but how much people out there are so about the money, they forget the good possibilities that some relations might bring. If you think that believing that people would want to make great things in their life is "naive" than I'm sorry to say, you kinda missed the whole point that Star Trek told us about. There are people out there trying to undermine others and get on top of everyone else, yes, but I think sometimes you should at least give the benefit of the doubt.
But hey, the damage is done, as always.
@@Beta_Mixesyea they should of, but because CBS had a contract with Jar Jar and his disciple Kurtzman if Secret Hideout, they didn’t want another show they didn’t control taking money away from them. Same reason the 2009 Star Trek had to be at least 25% different so all the merchandise money would go to them
Yes, but you have to remember to put it in the context… Back then there had been basically a full decade of Lucas film looking the other direction on Star Wars projects (and even actively advertising their support of some of them) and Paramount in basically saying nothing about Star Trek fan films. There was a certain idealized world out there that had been asking aloud whether you could basically will these two worlds into a pseudo public domain. It was an odd social time where Google and Facebook and UA-cam and everybody wanted to present this sort of utopian perspective of “we’re not going to sue anybody for anything as long as everybody plays nicely in the sandbox and we get to just silently make money in the background.“
So as strange as it may seem to people, nowadays, I think it’s important to point out that Paramount/CBS’s silence was strongly noted and everyone presumed that they would not sell anything for profit… No one ever had before. It did depend on a handshake in Goodwill and so I completely understand the eventual lawsuit, but the days of unhindered fan films/fan fiction was a brief moment of civility and celebration of Star Trek culture that I dont think we’ll ever see again
@@MurderMostFowl That's the point. Axanar clearly jumped over the line between fan film and commercial product using the Trek IP. If Paramount had looked the other way it would have been 10 times harder to stop the flood of small production companies creating their own Trek content. Personally, I think that would have been a great thing - but these are public listed companies that have a legal responsibility to their share owners. It's all very well saying that wouldn't it be great if everyone was a bit more Trek and didn't worry about profit and so and so - but if Paramount had allowed a multi-billion dollar franchise to be stolen from them that could have genuinely led to legal cases against it's board and CEO.
I've been pretty "meh" on modern trek for a while, as someone who loved DS9 and TNG. I don't find them terribly offensive, but I can't say they're even in my top 5 star trek productions. The problem is that it's very easy for a fandom to latch on to a handful of outspoken personalities and spread their opinions as though they were gospel. Don't get me wrong, I am a spaceship nerd, I've watched every video Spacedock has ever put out, but that's not what I go to Star Trek for, it's just a fun extra bit I get to nerd out about.
You’re right about Axanar and Discovery being kind’a the same thing. Except Axanar had the proper setting; the characters are more traditionally Star Trek, the ships look like Star Trek; it fits the established setting. DS9 did the same. It’s second half was all war. But it worked for the same reasons. Discovery does not. You can’t reconcile the two.
IMHO that 20 minute Prelude to Axanar was far better that Discovery and JJ Abrams movies combined...
It shows the difference between those that "get it" and those that don't. The death of a thousand cuts issues with Discovery and Picard would have been (somewhat) overlooked if either had been any good. Presentation and delivery is nothing if the content is flawed.
@@desallis Exactly!
Exactly as well
Guys, your head canon of what Star Trek should or shouldn't be is not the standard people dealing the material will held too. We don't own it, and never will. You people sound like all the fans that hated TNG or DS9 back when first came out. Get some perspective.
Cut out the gorgeous cg work of Tobias Richter and it basically boils down to shots of people sitting in chairs verbally fellating the main character while some anamorphic lens flares make everyone look wistful.
Its a rarely done framing device that makes it a little refreshing and interesting, but its the same technique Halo 3 used for its trailer because its all coded to let people trick themselves, going 'ah, war veterans and sombre music, this is a serious adult thing like a museum, which we are looking at because we are cultured intellectuals and not because pew pew laser beams'.
Its an reasonably entertaining 20 minutes sure, but it is not some bastion of amazing writing. And most crucially, has nothing to do with what the quality of its actual final story, acting, dialogue, characters, and themes would have been.
The Problem is Michael Burnham does NOT exist in OG Trek Canon.
Garth of Izar DID
So?
@@RowanJColeman that is a fundamental Problem in my book
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 So we can't have new characters from the TOS era?
@@RowanJColeman It's also a case of simple over exposure, plus her being Spock's brother, a Vulcan-level intellect, and so on. And the Axanar has this historical style thing going with the 'myth of Garth' that I think the actual character would turn out fairly different from, seeing himself as mythologized.
We also get Sonya and Marcus and other major characters thrown in too, and Karn, so I assume there would be several points of view. And in seeing how the Federation was challenged, rise to the occasion and struggle to maintain their ideas, I suspect a lot of thematic material would still come to the fore.
@@RowanJColeman i think If they violate Canon then No.... I thought even the introduction of Spocks half Brother Sybok in Star Trek 5 was kinda dumb
Axanar seems to be turning into the Star Citizen of fan films, it's still in production and they are still selling merch.
I was a teenager when Star Trek was in first run on TV and have followed it ever since. The Kelvin timeline and the new CBS stuff simply has not clicked that well with me. I enjoyed the first Kelvin film, but the others were not as interesting as I had hoped. I have no interest in Discovery or Picard so I cannot comment on them. I do believe, however, that Star Trek must evolve to speak to modern audiences. Roddenberry's Trek was for my generation and probably the next, but maybe not for more modern tastes.
One nit to pick: Garth of Izar is most definitely not a Gary Sue: he is explicitly mentioned in TOS as one of the greatest of the early Star Fleet commanders due to his victory at Axanar so he has the history and the chops to be treated as he is in Axanar. I would have liked to see his story and, eventually in another film, how and why he descended into madness.
How exactly does being mentioned in TOS as one of the greatest of the early Star Fleet commanders make him not a Gary Stue?
@@Carabas72 It's less being mentioned and more of what we saw of him in TOS, namely that he went mad and was a shadow of his former self. Gary Stus don't tend to have something like this happen to them.
@@SpaceCase1214
You do realise that all of the supposed Mary Sues fandom rages about have similar flaws, right?
Old trek is not for modern taste is such a BS reasoning, what the Fandom doesn't like is similar to the recent concern amongst LOTR fanbase that the new LOTR TV shows will be turned into something like game of thrones show (aka including nudity, excess gore, inclusion of lgbtq etc) just for the sake of making it modern.
@@Napoleonic_S I must have missed the inclusion of nudity and gore in Star Trek. And OMG the gays are in it, oh no!!!!!!
Despite the merch situation of axinar, this has way more trek feeling to it than cbs has produced. It looks way more hopeful and positive than horrific gore and crew being mean to each bother. I’d have loved that team to take over the control of the franchise. Missed opportunity in my opinion. If CBS had said they will fund it and then get the majority of the profits, a lot more fans would be happy than what we ended up with. With the Klingon head thing, they said in enterprise that surgery would be a popular medical profession to fix the smooth heads - possibly some did and others embraced the smooth heads. Or not enough medics available.
11:05 Well, to me it's not that it's too much action, but it's that the action is completely senseless. It's a soup of "stuff" and "things" happening in a vaguely Star Trek aesthetic (though with Discovery it's more like some names are shared with the rest of Star Trek), which can definitely make it feel like there's too much action.
Prelude to Axenar kept a very good TOS aesthetic while paying tribute to the Vulcan arc from Enterprise and while having war themes went more in the direction of DS9 war portrayal rather then the modern Star Treks warships, grunts and cyberpunk portrayal. It's a complete 180 from what we got with Discovery.
It's easy to cut together a trailer that looks great but it's a whole other thing to make a show or film. I saw one of that team's previous projects, Renegade. And it is one of the worst Star Trek stories ever.
The whole lead up to Renegades actually got me interested in it (I'm normally not a fan of fan productions), but after 10 minutes of the actual thing I turned it off. Unwatchable. I was immediately reminded why I'm not a fan of fan films...
Renegades was not actually their project. That was Tim Russ and Walter Koenig's project that had closer ties with the New Voyages / Phase II team, which was James Cowley's production, not Alec Peters'
And yes... Renegades was certainly rough. It did get a little better when you get to see Tuvok and Checkov, but... only a little.
Meanwhile, Renegades was also selling merch. Most notably custom badges and resign-cast props like Phaser pistols and the like. Most notably at the Star Trek Las Vegas convention the year before the "guidelines" happened. Also the folks from Star Trek Continues were selling autographed photos with them as their Star Trek fan film characters. So, virtually EVERY major fan film production was "making money" off it. This was by no means limited to Axanar.
Even so,... "merch" is a big-ass grey area when it comes to fan productions. Fan Artists have been making money off Fan Art since the term even existed. Anyone who wants to say "if you make make money off someone else's IP, you are a criminal", I dare them to say those words out loud in Artist Alley at any Anime Convention you could name. As I said,... its not black and white, its a mirky shade of grey.
@@k1productions87 it's really a matter of scale. If some random artist is selling Star Trek or Marvel fan art, making $40 per commission, most companies will not care. But if you're building an entire film studio on trademarked/copyrighted material, getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters, outright telling people that the money will be used to build a business that will work on other projects, that's going to be a problem.
@@KingOfMadCows If building a studio was such a big deal, the lawsuit would have happened the second it was announced during the Kickstarter. But it was not. Indeed the studio wasn't even the topic of the lawsuit. Hell, "Ares Studios" was even allowed to continue to exist after the settlement was reached (Yes, the lawsuit ended in a settlement, not a "you're guilty" judgment). If it was such a big deal, it would have been stamped out of existence without question.
I know we want things to be all black and white, but reality is always more mirky shades of grey.
@@k1productions87 Hi. Do you mean resin instead of resign? You've written resign in two comments, so I don't think it's a typo.
I initially really liked the idea of Axanar and supported it but I became concerned about the amount of money us fans were pledging seemed to be going into a black hole and still has not been accounted for and has just left mostly bad feeling. Will we ever see anything...... probably not sadly. Awesome stuff Rowan.
It was to help him set up a studio to make a living off. That was the black hole in the end. Thankfully CBS/Paramount shut him down before he could continued to scam anyone else.
incorrect. The pledge money WAS accounted for, and the breakdown of where it was going has been clearly spelled out many times. The "black hole" became the trial, as all production was forced to cease, making the rented location continue to suck monthly payments so long as the trial continued, until finally they were forced to uproot and move.
It was supposed to become a place where fan and independent film makers could do their work inexpensively in the financial sinkhole that is California with all its regulations, taxes and fees. THAT was the point of the studio. But thanks to the trial eating a big chunk out of the budget, they had to abandon California and move somewhere cheaper with less politics.
Those of us who live in California lost what would have been an incredible resource... while people paint the big corporation as the victims
@@k1productions87 I dropped them when they started selling mercendise and other stuff. Something that is a big nono with other peoples copyright.
@@nulian That is actually false.
Firstly, selling merchandise wasn't even an issue in the lawsuit. Secondly, selling merchandise and other stuff is no different than selling autographed photos of you as the Star Trek fan-character (Star Trek Continues was doing that), or selling props, models, and badges used in your fan film (Star Trek Renegades did that), or the thousands upon thousands of fan-artists selling their works of others' copyrights at any convention across the country, whether it be anime or sci-fi.
Pointing to the "selling merchandise" is just to go-to for those who either don't know what they are talking about, OR are banking on the fact that others don't know the difference.
Here is some food for thought, if selling merchandise was such a big no-no,... why do Paramount and CBS allow them to continue to do it, even after the lawsuit settlement and the terms therein?
A valid concern. Honestly, if I was donating money to a fan film, my own requirements would be to keep it non-commercial and to keep the use of the donations transparent. It seems the issue in this case was mainly with the former, less so or not with the latter.
I do think canon matters generally and in discovery they looked very different from what we as fans knew and that was a tad jarring. I also think at the end of season one of discovery i didn't feel like I knew a lot about other characters as they did feel less developed and that was unfortunate when it came to the writing at the end of the first season. Discovery also seemed to need the time jump to be at it's best. That all seems to be a writing issue sadly
Copyright law is meant to establish legal ownership of an intellectual property. Corporations don't own the rights to *anything* unless the ACTUAL copyright owner sells it to them. So don't blame the corpirations, blame the artists who sell to them.
People investing in fan backed projects always need to remember that the copyright owners can end the existence of the project any time they want.
I love that the copyright law is your counterargument. Copyright law only changed to allow companies to hold ideas like this nearly indefinitely. Companies don't get to make money off creative peoples ideas forever, nor should 'copyright law' be the only worthwhile defense. Laws change, in fact copyright law has changed in very recent terms.
Laws change obvy, but they are still laws - if you break them and get caught, you pay a price - what's the problem here?
Yeah, his ignoring this angle and his passing "the fan guidelines are bad but that's irrelevant right now" made this feel like a cop-out. Will have to wait and see if he does a seperate video on that.
@@Avjunza
I think rowan even mentioned/alluded that the guidelines are a bit much - I'd say draconian - but trek always has been about making money - so if someone uses your IP for their own income stream, you have to do something, especially when it was Peters and his legal team that asked for the guidelines
@@SC-mq1eh trek was about saying we don't need money. Companies were about making money off it. And the copyright law that allowed them to be this draconian was in 1976, years after Star Trek came out and was abandoned by its copyright holders (until they realized it had a rabid fanbase).
@@SC-mq1eh that this law changed to benefit companies at the cost of creativity, and too much of our society is for the benefit of companies with the average persons reaction seems to be, "it is what it is......what is the problem?"
Axanar aproached war and battles from the perspective of war history and war strategy, Discovery aproached from the perspective of lets make everything flashy and colorful, that's the main issue
Lol the shot of the D7 crashing down looks exactly like the crashing of Vengeance from Into Darkness. Give up.
PRELUDE to Axanar approached it from that direction, because it was a 10 minute trailer that used that as a framing device, and lets be honest there's a good chance they were riffing on that Halo 3 trailer that did that back in the day.
Axanar itself would have almost certainly approached it like any other blockbuster
Accurate uniforms is definitely why I would have preferred this over discovery. 80s/90s trek is visually distinct. Discovery doesn't feel like the same aesthetic language.
In 2016, the producers said the series was a visual reboot - and the world doesn't really need anymore velour mocknecks
Kind of like "Promethius' looked nothing like 'Alien' or 'Aliens' - more advanced styles, even though it was set in an earlier time than Ripley's adventures.
I'm not convinced it would have been "wall-to-wall action". Not like modern Trek that's heavy on the special effect just for the sake of cool. This would have been heavy on combat yes, but with more focus on the characters who were hip deep in it. It would remain focused on the human element rather than just action for the sake of action. The thing that got me excited was the President's speech in "Prelude". That moment felt like proper Trek, because it felt like a speech that was very much in line with true Federation values of the time. It had the soul involved, not just events.
All that said, that was my sense of it. We could have gotten something that was nothing of the sort, and I would have been VERY disappointed.
I agree. What a lot of people in the comments, including Rowan, seem to be overlooking is that Axanar would have been the story of a battle ... that kinda requires, well, a battle? It would be like telling the story of The Battle of Midway, or Trafalgar, or Desert Storm and not having any fighting take place if these people got their way.
Exactly. It was bound to show some conflict because the story was about the Four Years War with the Klingons. But as we can see from Prelude and other released titbits, the war was the background to very human (and alien) stories. It was clearly going to try and show it from the Klingon perspective too. Watching Kharn, you could only feel interest, admiration and respect for that character.
" I'm not convinced it would have been ""wall-to-wall action"". Not like modern Trek that's heavy on the special effect just for the sake of cool. "
You sound totally brainwashed and deluded. Just go and try to re-read the tosh after yourself.
Bloody Hell!!! This is insane!!
I do know it would have been great. I know because I watched the first Axanar OVER and OVER and OVER and it made me want more. CBS can't do that for me. I believe it would have been great. However, CBS was in there rights. CBS should have just funded AXANAR as the greatest fan film ever made and made it a POSITIVE.
I was very pumped for Axanar (less so now), and laughed at CBS/Paramount making themselves look like asses with the lawsuit and the way the PR was handled...
...but I never really paid attention to all the merch they were selling, and when you pointed that out in your video I was like " :| ...yeaaaah... Alec Peters done f-ed up hard right there." Real good point.
How is Garth of Izar as we know him now different from Michael Burnham? Garth is known to have made an interesting manuver, that makes him a revered hero. Michael Burnham is a crazy martial arts expert, who's the stepdaughter of Spock, who travels time, who basically does everything and anything no normal human could not do in order to preach the philosophy of how cool 115-pound girl can be..... Literally everyone else on Discovery is a better charter, because they come with real flaws. Not situationally developed contrived in-human flaws..... It's Stupid. If you can't tell the difference between character development and forcing it your lost. Not to mention the writing of Axanar are highly implies that Garth isn't a superhero, he has Li Nalas syndrome. Everyone worships him as a hero but he thinks he "got lucky". Michael, superhuman with ties to main characters that never brought them up before and never suffers any kind of real lasting damage or consequences of their horrendous ends-justify-the-means philosophy.
The irony is that Garth ended up in an insane asylum in TOS.
More to the point, he was Kirk's hero and in continuity we WAS a great tactician and hero in the Federation, just like Kirk was portrayed. That hardly prevents an ensemble cast, no does it say that absolutely every decision on every subject was made by one character who was never wrong and never suffered any real setbacks due to their own decisions. In fact, Prelude shows quite a few arenas where other people were clearly the leads.
Garth should have been the antagonist in Star Trek: Into Darkness and NOT Khan. The putting your hero on a pedestal that you have to take down idea could have been explored to great effect IMO.
A classic example of how getting promoted above Captain causes insanity. Fleet captain, commodore, admiral... If you go above captain, you're gonna go evil, insane, or suffer a fate worse than death that even the redshirts would say "Wow, glad that wasn't me!" at.
I think of that every time I watch Prelude To Axanar.
I think the “Mary Sue” opinion is flawed.
Just because you just landed on this planet doesn't mean that Tom Hanks is a “Mary Sue” because he's a great actor. He was a great actor before you got here. A lot of narrative was spent to explain the Klingon commander before he even showed up. Now, if it turned out he was also a powerful Sith... Well okay, maybe that would make him a “Mary Sue”.
Everyone in a story has to be explained. The “Mary Sue’s” are the ones that don't have an explanation to why they have any given ability that changes the course of the narrative.
With hindsight being 2020. I think CBS should have got the guys to admit that they violated CBS copyright and then CBS should find the project or collected any profits from the merchandise. Then let the movie come out. That way they could have protected their copy right but not piss off Star Trek fans.
I think that would've set a bad precedent. There'd suddenly be dozens of high profile fan films expecting to be picked up by CBS. That's no way to manage a franchise.
Why would they reward people who were using intellectual property they didn't own to enrich themselves? Read the script. It wasn't worth diluting their ownership of Star Trek to produce that screenplay. axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=script_release
That would have been a very bad move on CBS' part, and I doubt their lawyers would have ever let that happen. The point is they cannot encourage this kind of behavior, so it had to be a firm slap down.
@@RowanJColeman would it? Would it really? Judt look at game companies. Various publishers hire independent developer companies to make games for their IP. A similar situation could of happened here.
@@paulrasmussen8953 how many of those used other peoples IP and tried to publish that before being picked up?
If you cant stomach the reasons given by proffesionals (ie not finding a working example with above mentioned framing). Law is not easy, so if people in droves choose to axe somethign that might come back and bite them if they do not, perhaps youre not looking at is sincearly if all you can think of is "what couldve gone wrong?"
I feel like you've misunderstood or misrepresented things in this video. At least as far as fan reaction to Axanar vs Discovery and such. While there are certainly strong similarities between the two the important differences are that the creators of Axanar showed more intention to maintaining the continuity and feel of Star Trek as we've always known it where as Discovery has been more interested in being new and different even somewhat irreverent of what came before. Personally I find it unfortunate that Axanar has stalled because I'm not interested in any of the current Star Trek shows. They are far to "mature" for my taste when it comes to depictions of violence, language, and sexuality. I'm not upset about them tackling difficult and sensitive things morally and politically, but I prefer it in a much more family friendly manor, which is something Axanar was going to do.
The beauty about classic Trek all the way up to 2005 is that social and political issues are discussed with the lens of analogy where they leave it to the viewer to see many sides and come up with their own opinions.
There can be huge difference between action scenes and "dark" and "war". The problem with New Trek, for example 09, that its action and battles are like from Marvel or Transformers. There is not a sense military combat tactics happening, the characters do not appear as commanders of military forces. The characters and the actors both appear to be too young for the role they take. Kirk's story in 09 is that he is kicked out of Starfleet as a cadet, he didn't even graduated, then he hitchhikes on the Enterprise, then things happen, then suddenly he takes the Captain's chair. He isn't even in Starfleet practically on that point, he isn't graduated from the academy, he isn't on the ship crew roster of the Enterprise, and he is certainly not the second to take Captaincy by chain of command, from Spock in that film. The only reason he ends up being captain, because dumb audiance knows Kirk is captain, so at the end of dumb movie, Kirk has to be captain, and it doesn't matter if it makes zero sense in the film's own narrative.
I remember that funny line when Nog asks O'Brien if he takes the chair would he be called captain, and the answer is "Cadet when you are in that chair, nobody left to call you captain." I love spacebattles, I love warstories, i love movies like The Outpost, or Battle of the Bulge, or Waterloo, even Midway was a correct recent warmovie even if not holding up against classics. Deep Space Nine sells itself as a war story, it has wartime drama, topics, stylistic story telling fitting for these type of stories and the characters are fitting into it. New Star Trek characters are just not believeable as such characters.
War, action, dark stuff can be thought provoking, and smart as well. But the new treks never appear to be.
I like dumb action movies, don't get me wrong, like Six Underground, or Commando for a classic. But I don't like dumb posing as smart.
Also both Picard and Discovery, are internally inconsistent, lots of things just happen to have action, or some ridiculus plot twists, and the character are mostly insufferable. I also don't like all the violations against Star Trek I hold dear going on, but even why I try to look over these, they just don't hold up themselves. There are a few mediocry entertaining episodes, and most of them are boring, or annoying.
I never understand how people get pissy about CBS/Paramount defending their IP when it comes to Fan Films.
I'm as much of a fan as the next person, but honestly, I have no idea how so many of these projects get off the ground. The laws of copyright are pretty clear-cut.
Believe, if I created a successful franchise that people started ripping off left, right and center to do their own thing... I'd be responding with the strongest legal artillery at my disposal.
Canon is universe building. To have such a laissez-faire attitude towards it is so lazy in my opinion.
I don’t know about the, “we don’t know.”
It took half an hour to know Discovery was garbage.
Isn't that what makers of fan films hope for? To have their talent recognised in non profit projects and be given the opportunity to become a professional? The merchandising was a misstep though.
They weren't just hoping to have their talent recognised. They were planning to directly leverage their Axanar fame and success into creating their own studios.
@@Carabas72 If they aren't making money off of Axanar to do it, I can't really see a difference.
@@Haplo699g Except they were. Much of the money for this film was spent building the studio they would use for other projects. That's a little too close to it being for profit. They're using the Star Trek IP to bring in fans and get them free advertising to their studio with nothing paid to the IP holder.
Not saying CBS didn't handle it wrong as well and could have handled it A LOT better, but it wasn't just the merch that crossed the line.
@@Haplo699g
Yeah, what Forest Wells said. They weren't just making a fan film. They were planning to indirectly use their fan film to make themselves lots of money.
@@forestwells5820 Ah! That makes sense. Shame, would have liked to see it.
I've been following Axanar for over a year, and I am a paying member.
Unfortunately it is really getting to be a "When will it be Finished"... Every few month we get a couple of minutes spoiler - but that is all.
It is an incontrovertible fact that between the end of the 2014 Kickstarter and the filing of the lawsuit by Paramount/CBS, Alec Peters had FIFTEEN MONTHS to complete the project. Instead of getting right to work when he had the money and available talent, he spent those months doing interviews, going to conventions and selling merchandise.
CBS could have worked with the Axxanar team and regained some credit. What makes me really sad is this was one of Richard Hatch's final roles, a man who gave so much to Sci-Fi. Just the teaser was more Star Trek than anything released since Enterprise imho and the majority of fans agree on the matter from what I've read over the years.
CBS picking up Axanar and making it official was never going to happen.
@@RowanJColeman Unfortunately true, says a lot really. They wriggle out of the plagiarised content lawsuit for Discovery, yet any opportunity to please fans without a significant cash injection wasn't up for discussion, makes me sad, not angry.
@@RowanJColeman I don't know if it _never_ could have happened, but in this case I doubt it could have. Both CBS/Paramount and Peters (and I say this as a fan of _Axanar)_ were both just too entrenched in their sides I think from what I can tell.
The irony seems that they both came out the other side, after seeing the fallout, wishing that they'd played a bit differently. Had they both not been quite so stubborn, I could see it _maybe_ having happened.
P.S. Also, as much as I may love _Prelude_ and pine for the film that never will be, I do agree that CBS/Paramount were totally in the right as far as any legality.
@@scaper8 Think about the precedent that would set though. Suddenly there would be a dozen Star Trek fan films thinking they could be picked up and made "official." That would just make all the legal problems way worse and CBS would quickly lose control of their franchise.
@@nemz7505 Oh my god the bloody Tardigrades lawsuit is a whole other thing. CBS did not "wriggle" out of anything.
I really have to take you to task on a whole variety of comments you make on this subject. I should start by saying I am no great fan of Peters or his business strategy, and was quite ambivalent about a number of aspects of how he tackled the creation and production of 'Axanar'. That being said; firstly, I think you really need to read up on the background to Garth of Izar. Peters clearly was taking a leaf out of the book of 'The Wrath of Khan' - by resurrecting a character from a TOS episode. In this instance it was not bringing his character up to date (as in "whatever happened to...?") but going back chronologically, to examine the story of this once legendary Starfleet character - before he went mad (and before the period when Kirk & Co. met him). It was a worthy venture. It would have been an interesting addition to the whole original series universe. It isn't controversial in plot because he is fleshing out something we already know a little about. It wouldn't mess with canon, and it wouldn't affect anything that came afterwards. Secondly; I think you are way off the mark by this continuous rant about everybody saying this was going to be 'the best Trek movie ever'. I have followed this saga from the very beginning (and was one of the many thousands of his original crowd-funders myself). People were not saying that. They were saying that Axanar was shaping up to be in the real spirit of the Roddenberry Trek and those shows which were inspired by him. This is absolutely apparent to anybody who understands the style, nature, and feel of Star Trek. It was very authentic. It was measured and intelligent and was clearly a devotional homage to the original series. There's nothing wrong with that. Older fans like me - who have followed the thing since I was a kid in the 1960s know exactly how Star Trek should look and 'be'. Anybody watching 'The Mandalorian' on Disney+, for example, will breathe a sigh of relief that Star Wars is once again in the hands of those who know, love and understand what makes it tick. The same was true of Star Trek in this instance. It was looking magnificent. It was looking like an extended TV film version of the old series. Nobody ever thought or suggested it was going to be as good as 'The Wrath Of Khan', or 'The Undiscovered Country'. But it was very authentic Star Trek that the fans recognised. It was everything that the J.J. Abrams movies were not. You are suggesting a false equivalency by comparing the JJ Trek to Axanar. Abrams has admitted he didn't particularly like Star Trek and nor did he watch it. He wasn't a fan and had no love for it. If you have done any research you must know this. Abrams was trying to turn Star Trek INTO Star Wars (which he did like). And that is why his movies are nonsensical 'fast & furious' rollercoaster popcorn fests. They ARE NOT proper Star Trek because he never intended them to be. The plots are ridiculous and in the case of 'Into Darkness' just plagiarised from TWOK. His movies might have appealed to some newer, younger fans - but largely not to the older established ones. I haven't got time to dissect this junk at length here, however. Conversely, Peters does love Star Trek and has been involved in it in one way or another for a long time. He is a fan and with his professional abilities he can fuse these things together. Thirdly, you have neglected to mention that CBS / Paramount were offered 'Axanar' - virtually on a plate for next to nothing - but snubbed the overtures from Peters & Co. Your comments about corporate conspiracy theories sound more like they were scripted by CBS's lawyers rather than a fair examination of the truth. Fourthly, along with Abrams, the other joker who has ruined Star Trek has been Alex Kurtzman. You dismiss 'canon' as being unimportant. Well maybe it isn't to you. But it certainly is to the vast majority of long-running Trekkies / Trekkers. It is the logical, cohesive and rational universe that everybody has bought into. The utter garbage that is 'Discovery' - and to some extent 'Picard' - trashes what has gone before. It shows massive disrespect to everybody who has ever been involved in Star Trek - before 2009. Whilst, I accepted some of your points as being reasonable - and the whole tone of your presentation as being amiable enough - I really think you have demonstrated that you don't know enough about the ethos of Trek - nor 'Axanar' in particular - to make such sweeping statements as you have done. This issue is actually quite complex....
well said!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Fans dismiss New Star Trek for not following canon to the letter, but praised the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica for being edgy and gritty.
Wait...you pointed out why they are different yourself there, J. BSG was a total retelling of the story, taking a pulpy 80s show and giving it a more serious and political intrigue drama infused retelling.
New Trek is based in exactly the same universe and is supposed to be "In Canon". BSG didn't have those constraints.
The two are most definitely not the same.
Plus the writing of BSG is stellar while the writing of New Trek is cringe. As of the last episode, now apparently Spock was only the awesome man he was due to his even awesomer sister who is, if you know psychology, the biggest narcissist on TV since House.
i'm not a tekkie, i'm a sci fi fan. New Trek is freakin terrible on so many levels it's not even funny....plus they stole the Spore Drive and Space Tardigrade wholesale from someone else.....as they did the idea for DS9 from J.M. Strazynski. i find the people surrounding Trek production morally bankrupt.
BSG, again, was a story retold in much more serious manner than its original. It is by far superior.
@@mossadon But can't you say the same thing about Star Trek 2009?
@@Jkwik90 JJ Trek is its own thing. i accept that. It is most definitely of its time and trying to do things in a more action filmy way. It does what it does and it isn't actively sticking the middle finger to Trekkies.
New Trek series though..... >shudder< is most DEFINITELY taking perverse joy in giving Trekkies the finger. Even putting that aside....the writing by itself is just terrible.
fans dismiss things that shit on the heart of the project, the "reimaging" still retained the heart of BG even if they took a more serious approach to than its campy predecessor. it was still Battlestar Galactica at its core. the new trek has nothing to do with actual trek besides names, and the title. they are generic fantasy sci fi in a star trek skin, an edgar suit.
One of the other things that CBS/Paramount didn't like was that Peters had constructed "permanent" sound stages with the money raised...pretty much enabling Peters to launch his own production company...
Axanar couldn't be a "fan film" due to it employing professional actors to play established parts. I'm sorry but Axanar is an unsolicited professional feature film and that is not the definition of a fan film...
You mean like virtually every other fanfilm? New Voyages/Phase II had established names appear, like George Takei and Walter Koenig.
"Of Gods and Men" included Tim Russ, Walter Koenig, Garrett Wang and Nichelle Nichols, to name a few. "Renegades" included even more than that, from both main and secondary cast, all of whom reprising their original roles, like Tuvok, Chekov, Dr. Louis Zimmerman and Admiral Paris, among others. And then you got Star Trek Continues (the ones that continued to make episodes that blatantly disregarded half the guidelines for over a year afterward)
@@k1productions87but the “Continues” guys weren’t selling the stuff they made. At the end of the day Holliwierd has totally abused the copyright laws and had lobbyists constantly harass politicians to try extend it past the current 100 yr mark
I'd prefer a full blown mockumentary series, over just another normal film. I love mockumentaries, and wish more would be made set in established universes. Imagine a Star Wars mockumentary about the Clone Wars, but told from the Imperial perspective. Or a BSG mockumentary about the First Cylon War.
The best Star Trek fan film is, IMHO, "Pacific 201". Not only was it painstakingly made and has an identity of its own in a little explored era of the Trek universe, unlike Axanar, the team behind the production kept strictly to a non-profit vision, with no attempts to commercialize the production or hawk its association with Star Trek, like the team behind Axanar unfortunately did. IMHO, Pacific 201 also has more interesting writing and ideas, rather than the seen-it-a-million times pew-pew mega battles with overpowered ships war story of Axanar. If you haven't seen Pacific 201, check it out, along with the three prologue shorts. A great, unpretentious little fan film. I don't know how I'd classify Axanar, but I would classify Pacific 201 as "the real Star Trek", at least when it comes to fan films.
At least Pacific 201 actually happened.
I keep seeing this argument that Axanar was using Kelvin timeline ship design ... they really aren't. I'm old enough to remember when back in the early 80's a company called FASA produced a Star Trek RPG game system and tons of supplements for it. It was true to TOS in all ways and throughout years of production they expanded on many historical events mentioned, if only briefly, in TOS. One of those was the Four Year war with the Klingons and in that supplement they created ship designs. They also released a supplement on it's own which listed and showed all Starfleet ships and a brief history for them all. If you look at them compared to those you see in 'Prelude' they are exactly the same. So who copied who? My feeling is that the guys behind Axanar were being true to FASA's renditions of TOS era ships. Now if JJ decided to copy those then great, but this argument that the Axanar creative team stole from the JJ'verse is unproven and I feel totally wrong.
Glad I’m not the only one that remembers FASA Trek, I still have 90% of their material.
@@AC-gb7do Me too, lol:)
It looks like a hybrid style to me.
@Snake Plisken No one mentioned canon. We were talking about where the ideas for the ship designs originally came from.
No you totally misunderstood the enterprise Klingon ridge thing. Only a certain part of the population would lack ridges.
Canon matters and discovery doesn’t even try
Also it's explained in the os comics that the Klingon empire is made up of hundreds of planets & that different races of Klingons evolved. Like the voyager ep. were they found klingons in the delta quadrant & they looked bigger & darker skinned.
@@josefa.trinidad4137 " it's explained in the os comics" well thats one of the problems, all big franchise suffer today (appart from producers who give a shit about the product and only think money, money money) It Always the same ST, SW, DW, GB2016 They do something a a film or show, without any knowlage w s e and do it for a mass crowed, that has no idea of "franchise / story law or canon" They got called out by the Nerd-Fans and go full panic mode. "Here is a book that show our Klingons" "Here is a book, why palpatine is back" "Here is a book about knew powers you never seen before" You have to show the stuff on screen. Not anyone is going to read a book. If you cant sell a "beliefable" idea on screen, dont dry it. And yes im aware the os comics are from the 70s but same here...the lead production team had left and the people in charge were like "meh"
I beg to differ, but the truth of the matter is that the new Star Trek stuff, as you put it, is all bad.
We forget that when Axanar was announced, and Prelude to Axanar was made available to view, it was at the time where the first season of ST Discovery. Discovery was showing how Star Trek was being so badly mishandled on Discovery. Prelude to Axanar was a new hope. It within cannon.
Also, they had to defend/protect the property and copyright once it became for-profit. Because if you don’t, you lose the copyright.
A brilliant video as always. Your commentaries are always fair, right balance of critical and open minded.
"Gene's Vision" is the Trek version of "think of the children"
Heh, if Gene has his way, Star Trek would have been Game of Thrones in terms of sex and violence
"gEnE wOuLd Be RoLlInG iN hIs GrAvE"
Is the one I see most
Gene's vision would have meant no Patrick Stewart for Picard.
@@kthlars Hmm, source? Though he did shift a lot by the 1980s.
@@simonoleary9264 you do realize that while he wasn’t for Patrick Stewart he did still go with him as he had control of season 1 of TNG and wasn’t removed until season 2, right?
Well, that’s your opinion. I personally despise most of new Trek and adore Prelude to Axanar.
“Gene’s Vision” of Trek failed over and over. He had a great idea, others executed on it far better than he was capable of.
Gene himself the person was a terrible person the myth of Gene and his legacy is an odd duck. Gene created Star Trek created many many of the concepts still used today he was also took credit stole ideas added his name on scripts and bailed on S3 of TOS then his ideas after the original series are horrible his criticisms of various projects are well illogical and he tried turn the fan base against Star Trek
Star Trek had many many hands in its success gene was the father who later became jealous of the new stepfathers raising his “child”
And even the most basic research shows gene was a horrible person in real life
I dunno...I can see both sides of things. CBS/Paramount probably have mixed feelings about someone making fan films off of their copyright works, but I also recognize that there is also a true role for fan films, which I often watch and really like. Clearly you cannot sell works, or merch, based off of copyrighted material without the owner's consent or a licensing agreement and this is where Peters et al crossed the line. Honestly, they should have known better. You can see why CBS/Paramount had to step in and say no. Believe me, if you started making and selling Batman merch DC would be all over you in 2 seconds! That having been said, CBS/Paramount overreacted in terms of the "guidelines" they made for fan films. Why on earth would you step on fan enthusiasm for your product?
It's honestly insane that 4 years on after this video, _Axanar_ **STILL** hasn't been released. So much money has just gone straight into a black hole, it seems. At this point I doubt it will ever be released.
I was originally hopeful for Axanar back in the day, I loved the look of it. it showed the design and the look of the original series is completely viable on modern Tv screens . Trek seems to be full of what if's and could have been's
Well, for myself I don't know how much of the Behind-the-Scenes-Axanar drama is true or not. I don't care. For my part, I am forced to judge by results or lack thereof. ELEVEN years, and all we've gotten are promises and bits and pieces of a film but never a completed final product delivered. In a similar timeframe, both James Cawley and Vic Mignona combined delivered nearly twenty Star Trek fan episodes and with far less behind-the-scenes drama, and without getting into public legal battles with Paramount/CBS-Viacom in the process. I keep hearing Axanar Is Coming. Well, so is old age. Alec Peters and his continuing misadventures reminds me of the Orson Welles scene in the movie Ed Wood when Wells (Vincent D'onifrio) comments to Ed about "who's a windbag and who's got the goods".
The split of the Trek Fandom and the UA-cam voices of either side have ruined the show for me. This guy, lore reloaded, and the Fandom menace all sound the same. Everyone speaks so dismissively of each other's concerns and criticisms all the while crying echoes of their own conformation bias. Things no one ever said: "wow, now that you've used a condescending tone to explain how stupid I am for having a different opinion, I totally see your point. Thanks my friend". You can talk all you want on what Roddenberry would have liked or disliked, but I can tell you for certain he wouldn't have appreciated his vision being used to belittle or ostracize each other.
This is the result of people being indoctrinated over several decades with a WWE / Jerry Springer mentality. This is just how people have been trained to act, as more and more TV shows and movies influenced people and groomed them into acting this way. Humans in general, but especially within the western world, have become increasingly polarized on any topic that anyone wants to bring up. Race. Age. Gender. Sexuality. Religion. Politics. Literally anything. From broad categories like that, down to more specific ones like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc -- people in general have a very self loathing, hateful, narcissistic attitude. As much as it would be nice if this attitude was limited only to Star Trek fans, it has become an epidemic within the human race, or at the very least: humans within the western world.
@JFQ Don't mistake standards for being a, jerk.
However Axanar started I get the impression, from research I've done and people like Robert Meyer Burnett who were involved, is this became an ego driven mess and an attempt by Alec Peters to cash in on someone else's IP to build himself a studio and profit factory through crowd funding. Prelude IS well done, and I was excited for the actual movie, but siphoning more and more money from the public without anything substantial to show for it that isn't just benefiting him is, if not an outright scam, definitely a less than forthright way of doing things. Also, other fan productions like Star Trek Continues suffered because of this, and those WERE pure passion and love projects. The whole thing is an ugly shame, really, and Alec Peters casting himself as the heroic but humble Garth of Izar says a lot.
As far as comparing this to Discovery...there are a LOT of reasons to dislike Discovery, and Michael Burnham being not just a Mary Sue but practically a Messianic figure is only one of them. The Klingons in STD don't match in look or culture, the look of the show and ships is ugly, but those aren't the problem. Michael mutinies, starts a war, goes to jail for it, gets her own captain killed, and then is not only forgiven but rewarded. Michelle Yeoh, who I love as an actress, plays a cannibalistic Mirror Empress who tries to blow up Q'onos, is in general less than trustworthy, and she's not only accepted but CELEBRATED. I liked Lorca, and thought he was interesting, but he's tossed aside rather than explored as a character. I liked Anson Mount as Pike, and I'm actually one of those people that likes Strange New Worlds in spite of some thinking I should turn in my Trek fan card for it. The Red Angel arc is fragmented, nonsensical and a bit insane. The idea of a tormented kid blowing up all the dilithium in the universe in a fit is beyond cartoonish. I only got through season 2, but completely retconning Spock into being learning challenged among other things...I like Saru as a character, I like Tilly sometimes even when she's annoying. I like Michelle Yeoh and Anson Mount. There were tidbits here and there, buried in some really thin character and story arcs, but overall the thing can be unpleasant and baffling, spending more time trying to head canon all the holes and problems than you spent watching it (not in a fun way, either) . And I'm sorry, but Michael is incredibly unlikeable, smug, indifferent to any authority, and just not believable in a Trek setting that makes any sense.
Picard...well, Picard himself is insulted, demeaned, scapegoated, and spends half the first season apologizing. I could almost let that go, even with Allison Pill's character being borderline psychotic and dysfunctional, and Raffie making the Trek universe seem racist, classist and dystopian. I guess no one recorded Data's trial in Measure of a Man, because here's the robotic slave race. The Romulans make no sense, the whole AI plot feels like a confused callback to Mass Effect, THE EYEBALL scene, which was apparently literally torturing a character in effigy because of political views outside the show and is a grotesquely unnecessary blight.
At least Axanar, or what it was pretending to be, has some integrity. Alec Peters is feeding his ego, sure, but the speech of Admiral Marcus by itself, Richard Hatch...War stories can be inspirational, and two sides fighting a war as ideological as physical has some power and weight. Discovery and Picard (the trailers for Lower Decks put me off, and Prodigy just doesn't seem like Star Trek even if it seems like it could be a fine kid's scifi show) don't feel like much but critical, nihilistic, spiteful, and unpleasant. You could have a very well produced story about futuristic axe-murderers, rapists and serial killers dominating the galaxy, but that doesn't mean it's something I'd want to see. I'm not mad about it, but it is saddening and a bit depressing.
Anyway, I think you hit a nerve somewhere. Sorry about the rant. It's just everyone I know of criticizing Discovery and Picard are talking about Roddenberry's idea of a positive human future, not his direct involvement. Yes, DS9 compromised that and I love it, SNW I've liked so far, and I hear Picard Season 3 is good. There are plenty of dystopian futures in scifi, where you can get as vicious and vile as you like. At least leave some hope in Star Trek. As Marcus said, compared to the idea of losing the ideals of the Federation I don't fear the Klingon empire. I don't really fear bad writing and spiteful deconstruction, either, but I don't condone it.
Even if it wasn't going to be the best Star Trek film, it was sure going to be better than Star Trek V, or Star Trek Insurrection
I believe the smooth-headed Klingons in TOS were the augments that resulted from the eugenics experiments in Enterprise which closed that plot hole.
I can see how a film can be judged differently than a TV program. Focus on a single character story in a 90 to 120 min film is almost necessary. Focus on a single character in a 9 to 12 hour season can start to feel tedious. I don't know if the Burnham/Mary-sue camp is right or not, but I can see why the two projects can be viewed differently.
No matter If you Care for Trek Canon or Not... The Klingons in Discovery are ATROCIOUS and should NEVER be considered as klingons!
no the white men in brown face from TOS should bot be considered Klingons. discoveries interpretation of the klingons are how they should always look
@@exilestudios9546 No the Films and Next Generation klingons are Canon!
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 both looks are canon as Klingons are just as visually diverse as humans some have more pronounced ridges than others, some choose to shave, and some have different skin tones. the idea that there should be one definitive look for klingons is like saying all humans should be white. its an idiotic line of thinking and one treks current show runners have rejected as lower decks show off both TNG and DIS style Klingons i the scene with the klingon part of that city in episode 2.
@@exilestudios9546 sry the Klingons in Discovery are absurd and way Out of the typical klingon Looks... More like Orcs in space.
Where as I don't hate Discovery there's something missing to me that makes Star Trek Star Trek, it would be better if it was just its own IP I feel; my own opinion. And I think why people wanted Axanar was because it was familiar, Kirk and Spock talk about it and Garth is in TOS. I'm self would have liked to have seen that conflict and then maybe followed Garth to the accident that land him in that asylum. But again just own opinion.
It's easy to argue that Axanar would be better than the "official" Star Trek boils down to this:
Axanar is being made by people who love Star Trek. JJTrek, STD and Picard are made by people who hate Star Trek.
You can tell this had the original " Spirit " of TREK, compared to the more generic NuTrek series they've been producing lately. NuTrek is more like a Michael Bay production, and they don't stick to continuity....
They should've let them make it. It would have added to the Star Trek world positively. I think people were going to hate Discovery regardless of anything else.
Rowan, I agree with what you said in the video... kinda. Or let's say: I share your concerns. But...
Some years ago, when the first details of what STD would be about leaked, I groaned, thinking "not another Klingon war story!"
But I can accept Axanar. I can forgive the Klingon head ridges, because most of the rest looks right. If it looks right, it feels right (so to speak). Since it is a fan production, I can forgive the absence of a great or deep story.
The documentary format of "Prelude" also was intriguing.
It says "narrated by John Gill" in the titles. So, together with Garth of Izar, we have two of the Federation's 23rd century madmen involved in the story.
The character of Garth works because the fans know he will ultimately fail. Not in this war, but later...
Maybe, just maybe the story isn't so shallow, after all?
What makes me (and many others, I suspect) dislike STD is that it doesn't feel like Trek and that is due to the writing and design. It doesn't look right, so it doesn't feel right.
Imagine being a fan of history and you're watching a new movie about the Napoleonic wars, but the soldiers are wielding AK47s and M-16s (or whatever). Or imagine Sherlock Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls, but he has a jetpack.
That's the jarring feeling I get trying to watch STD.
Now, I could perhaps accept it as its own new thing, but the internal continuity is also very flawed. And yes, I'm aware that previous Trek shows had their problems as well. But this was compensated by clever stories and likeable characters. Except maybe for Saru, the crew of the Discovery isn't even interesting (and I liked original Giorgiou from the pilot episode).
It's just got no redeeming qualities.
What is interesting is that the ships and general look in the AXANAR production have much more in common with JJ Abram's Kelvin timeline than TOS. Even the cities shown look more like those in Into Darkness. AXANAR repurposed the design language of the 2009 film and I think people responded positively to that just as they did with the first Star Trek reboot film.
Discovery did not do that with it's look and technology. Had they also gone with something more like AXANAR then maybe fans would have responded more favorably. Instead, they went with something that looked like it should have been in some generic Mass Effect ripoff and people didn't like it.
In sum, while neither Discover or AXANAR are the "true" Star Trek, AXANAR is more rooted in the preestablished design language of Trek and feels more authentically Trek because of it.
Thanks for clearing things up, never heard about this side of things before. Very informative video.
The Discovery Klingons might not bother me if they weren't SO different. And just plain annoying. I hate the way they look. I hate the way they sound. I hate what they do, and what they say. The rest of the aesthetic changes Discovery made don't bother me though.
It was the slow talking that really really got to me in the 1st season of Discovery. It was tedious AF. Klingons are supposed to be warriors, not Eeyore from Winnie The Pooh. I've grown to love Discovery but the first season (like TNG) is a real slog to get through.
Klingorcs. They even eat man flesh. Michelle Yeoh's back on the menu, boys!
Of course Garth of Izar is a mary sue in Axanar. The producer cast himself in the role , the sole amateur while all the other actors are professionals, and all the Prelude does is have these talking heads telling us how he is bold, awsome, etc,. In the cannon, this is a character that Kirk admires and will say to him " You were the finest student at the Academy, the finest Starship Captain. You were the prototype, the model for the rest of us". It's over-the-top, clearly a vanity project for the producer. At least Sonequa Martin-Green didn't cast herself into Trek and wrote the scripts that make her the most important person to Spock and others!
Before watching this video i had only heard opinion on this subject that was anti CBS, so I appreciate this analysis of the subject. I don't always agree with your opinions, for example I value cannon a lot, though accept even before 2009 it hasn't always been followed e.g. Zefran Cochrane. Nevertheless I appreciate your perspective and hope you continue to challenge my assumptions by presenting facts in a balanced way.
IMHO cannon is not important as whatever studio has bought the rights seem to set 'cannon' and they're usually just suits attempting to make money out of your passion without really caring about it. Instead of 'cannon' replace it with 'internal consistency'. If something is in the history then you can't change it or forget about it because its inconvenient to a new story. You must remain consistent with what has been established before.
The question of true trek basically can boil down to this.
Respecting canon just shows you did the research. So many people working on new shows hate the IP and want to make their own stories. But they can't get their own stories funded so they end up having to work on legacy IP.
So it pisses people off when things are changed with no respect for the material. If they don't bother to get the easy details right why can we expect anything else to be good?
New trek is nihilistic and mean-spirited. There's no hope like Trek used to have.
The theme from axanar was being able to fight to defend the ideals of the federation without discarding those ideals. That's from the fed president speech.
You can do war stories stupidly or intelligently. People like the intelligent approach. That's what is supposed to define Trek. That it often gets very dumb is frustrating but the ideal remains good.
First I was so hyped about this and backed in on Kickstarter and Indigogo and the prelude was incredible!
But I've got the impression that all that happened the last year was a lot begging for more money and nothing really happened production wise :/
It's all merch merch and more merch. Even the last trailer wasn't showing anything really new. Kind of sad. We'll see what finally comes out of it.
Axanar is neat, The rise and fall of Garth, is a good potential story line, CBS/Paramount should have funded it.
Suddenly makes sense why Burnett is so negative about everything Trek from Discovery onwards. (there is plenty to dislike, but theres also great stuff too)
He's bitter for sure!
NEW trek is shit.
@@monsieurdubitatif8567
Yes another "real trekkie" that helps elevate the conversation! Roddenberry would be proud
@@SC-mq1eh not a trekkie, but simply a man of good taste, with an intellect high enough to see social engineering crammed into our intertainment.
btw, roddenberry's just a man,you know. no need to invoke him here, as it is not an argument.
Roddenberry had a good idea,startrek...and it thrives despite his best effort. you know that,right?
@@monsieurdubitatif8567
lol - obvy you aren't a trekkie or you and you're superior intellect(and btw, "im laughing at your superior intellect") would know that its creator and the franchise have been trying to cram social engineering into it's "intertainment" since the 60s
When I saw Prelude to Axanar and heard about the proposed feature film I thought "Oh God! Not another Federation goes to war story!" They did it with DS9, which was fine, but then they did it when Enterprises's ratings were suffering, and all the novels started being about the Federation at war, or a deep, dark conspiracy within the Federation. YYYAAAAWWWNNN!!!!!!!!
Exactly. I prefer fan films and fan series that try something more interesting than just another war story, regardless of the era of Trek. What I liked about Pacific 201 in particular is that though it touched upon themes of war, especially the trauma from a past war, it looked at the whole thing through a lens of how to move on from the repercussions of that conflict. Including how to get back into scientific exploration of space and the idealism necessary for it, rather than being obsessed with paranoia, espionage, enemy movements, and all that...
Prelude is better than modern STD and Picard story-wise. But yes, Peters put his foot in it with the merchandise. It didn't help CBS/Paramount that they were bringing out their own new tv series around the same time as the fans saw a conspiracy happening to shut down any other version of ST.
There is a big difference in having 1 central character in a standalone movie and 1 central character in a TV show. You can have episodes focused on one particular person but the entire show? The movie is basically a 2 part episode without subtitles in the middle.
With all do respect to your content that I thoroughly enjoy, I feel like the ACTUAL “truth of Axanar” stops with the fact that they straight-up violate copyright law by using an fan film that doesn’t even exist to profit and sell merchandise off of a well-known property that they did not own or have any licensing rights. Like full-stop - they broke the law there and should have known better.
Whether CBS and Paramount could have handled it in a way that had better optics is another story (wouldn’t have surprised me if they originally sent a cease & desist and the production just ignored it - seeing as they were already being brazenly reckless anyway). But they own the IP and have every right to stop others from profiting off of it. The only way you can truly go from there in defending that is to have a much broader, anarchistic conversation about the existence of copyright law in general. But that would require recognizing that CBS/Paramount’s behavior on the matter wasn’t uniquely nefarious but rather as completely normal and acceptable in the system they exist under... capitalism.
Personally, I think the jabber about comparing it to Discovery and other post-2009 Star Trek is kinda pointless and only distracts from what the actual issue was. Not to mention the fact that the fan production’s irresponsible profiting attempts ended up actually hurting other Trek fan projects that were playing fairly by forcing upon stricter, meaner guidelines.
Like a school kid who starts hurting people with a toy on the playground, causing the toy to be forever taken away, ruining it for the other kids.
Every major fan film project at the time was selling merch and memorabilia, including Renegades (which was a Tim Russ and Walter Koenig project, not Alec Peters) and Star Trek Continues. STC also making four MORE episodes AFTER the guidelines were posted... episodes that broke about half of said guidelines rather blatantly.
Four years after this video and Axanar has still not been released. I think that sums up the entire venture.
I think it's a pity that a third way couldn't be found to get fan films made, instead of this adversarial attitude. I get studios want to protect thier ip's but they would garner a lot of good will by say giving the project some help but letting them know they can't just do whatever they wish, without the express permission of the studio and giving the studio credit where due.
I imagine there would be a lot of people at these studios willing to help out, without overshadowing the fan made side of things, evryone could benifit if it was done well and in good faith.
Just my two penith worth.
I love that this vid is almost as long as Axinar itself lol
The fact of the matter really comes down to this. CBS was okay with fan productions, there was generally agreed upon standards for what fan productions would be. Alec Peters and his group took advantage of those leeways given by the studio so they can profit themselves. And in the end because of their greediness, they harmed all other fan productions in the process. All they had to do was abide by the standards, but they had to push and try to step across the line. Rules are rules for a reason, if one does not like then rules then of course call for change, but know that when you violate those rules, there are consequences. I do not feel bad for Alec Peters and the people who helped him make those decisions, I feel sorry for other fan film creators that they have to endure the consequences of someone else's bad decision making, and I feel sorry for fans who could have gotten something cool to watch. At the end of the day, given Alec Peters' behavior now with not paying people, suing anyone who disagrees with him, blocking out fans who've even supported him before when they dissent, and still trying to make money out of this production even against agreed upon settlement by the court, it is clear that he does not have good intentions and quite frankly never did. Or else he would not so ridiculously try to claim in court proceedings that his FAN FILM has nothing to do with the Star Trek IP. Let's not forget that even actors like Tony Todd eventually left the project because of concerns about Alec Peters and what was going on with the financials.
We seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room..... CBS All Access
CBS was not about to let full scale fan productions of professional-looking quality to continuing while they were pushing their pay subscription service. They needed a show trial, and someone to make an example of to scare everyone else off. Who better than the most prominent fanfilm production featured, and one that took place in the same era as they intended to set Discovery in.
Speaking of violating the rules, it is interesting how nobody points any fingers at Star Trek Continues for making four more full episodes AFTER the Guidelines were set... episodes that themselves violated nearly half of said guidelines.
We also forget that the lawsuit from CBS reached a settlement that allowed Axanar to continue, but not as a feature film, but instead two 15-minute episodes.