CBS/Paramount Sets Phasers To Kill On Star Trek Fan-Fiction With New Guidelines (audioholics.com) 254
Audiofan writes from a forum post on Audioholics: The Star Trek fan-fiction controversy that resulted in legal battles between CBS/Paramount and Axanar Productions concluded last week. However, CBS/Paramount have finally put forth its long-awaited guidelines intended to clarify acceptable fan-fiction so that it won't get the creative Star Trek fan sued for copyright infringement. But in doing so, it may have launched Star Trek fan-fiction's torpedo casket into space with a solemn salute. To be or not to be is the question which we ask about the future of Star Trek fan film. Some of the new guidelines for avoiding objections when making your own Star Trek movies and posting them to YouTube include: The fan production must be less than 15 minutes for a single self-contained story, or no more than 2 segments, episodes or parts, not to exceed 30 minutes total, with no additional seasons, episodes, parts, sequels or remakes. Part of the non-commercial requirements include: CBS and Paramount Pictures do not object to limited fundraising for the creation of a fan production, whether 1 or 2 segments and consistent with these guidelines, so long as the total amount does not exceed $50,000, including all platform fees, and when the $50,000 goal is reached, all fundraising must cease. The fan production cannot be distributed in a physical format such as DVD or Blu-ray. If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek uniforms, accessories, toys and props, these items must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products.
Scifi fans are generally a little more creative.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just rewrite the dictionary and make whatever you like; If the story is good and all things being equal it will still be enjoyable.
Instead of Federation use Union, Collective, .. If Phaser is copyrighted use laser, pulse pistol.
Instead of Klingon use African American, and so on..
IMO we need new wider variety of scifi anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't use Collective, it's probably copyrighted by The Borg.
Re: Scifi fans are generally a little more creativ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Will the comms officer be called Ubuntu?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I can't wait until Major Keerk uses his Maser to take down a charging Klangron warrior before beaming up to his star cruiser and engaging the hyperspeed drive at speed factor 6.
There, I just invented my own Star Trek knockoff lingo!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're close, anyway... It already happened. See: "Gene Roddenberry's : Andromeda" it was a Star Trek adapted to a non-Trek property because Paramount wasn't interested.
Re: (Score:2)
See: "Gene Roddenberry's : Andromeda" ...
Take my advice, don't.
Watching re-runs (if there were any) of the 70's show Blake's 7 would be more enjoyable, 30 odd years difference, and the plots, dialogue, and acting all got worse.
Re: (Score:3)
You jest. But the producers of the Star Wreck series (And eventually, Iron Sky) did exactly that. The last installment before they switched to moon nazis vs. Sarah Palin (No, I did not make that up.), was "In the Pirkinning", which chronicles an adventure of the C.P.P. Potkustartti, commanded by Captain James B. Pirk, with the assistance of crew members Commander Dwarf and Commander Info.
Through various somethity hole something anomaly blah blah blah; they eventually cross over into the universe of the Ba
Re: (Score:2)
That was kind of sexy until you got to the "incinerate" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stormfront doesn't count.
And the guidelines are (Score:5, Insightful)
And the guidelines are "1) don't do anything that takes away our precious money or actually competes with us, and 2) oh yeah, we're forcing you to buy all of our expensive prop junk, too."
Re:And the guidelines are (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like "Don't do anything that shows up the absolute crap we've been producing on TV and film for the last 15 years."
Re:And the guidelines are (Score:5, Interesting)
This. Star Trek Continues is actually better than the original series. Go watch it on YouTube, it's superior in pretty much every way. The latest episode has a rubber suit monster and it's actually /good/.
If the fan series had money to Paramount they probably could. After years of saying it was fine and encouraging them to invest so much time, money and effort into fan series they can't just pull the rug now.
Re: (Score:2)
After years of saying it was fine and encouraging them to invest so much time, money and effort into fan series they can't just pull the rug now.
Yes they can. A contract's only good until it expires, and they worked under the terms they were given. They made their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
The prop junk doesn't bother me as much as the rest. It may be a bit of a money grab, but it could be argued that they don't want your production costumes to look like shit.
Of course, if you have a costume designer that makes *better* stuff than their commercial stuff, which is certainly possible given what I have seen out there, then that's annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not it.
The idea is that if you do buy a uniform, it must be officially-licensed. If you make your own, you're good.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the way I read it. If you use something which is comercially available, it must be official merchandise.
If what you're using isn't commercially available - e.g., you made it yourself - then it's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And I've seen fan-made stuff that looks better than the actual props used in the show. Ever see the real props they used? "Good enough for TV" doesn't have to be very good at all.
While TOS was actually filmed in real film, it was then broadcast with the very poor-quality and low-resolution NTSC TV of the day, so they had a lot of leeway: people weren't going to be able to tell the difference on the crappy little TV screens they had back then. Now that they're dug up the original film footage and digitized
Them, them, fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Them, them, fuck them (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, they butchered the series with that shitty JJ Abrams movie. and now they're attacking fan fiction that's actually good and actually worth watching for actual star trek fans. FUCK EM
just another franchise bastardized to make crap tacular summer action blockbusters.
and a big fuck you to the people of america for flocking to those in droves and making this happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. I am not a huge fan of the new 'lens flare' Abrams movies either.
They are ok... but I would never watch any of them in the theater (redbox ftw!)
Re: (Score:2)
and a big fuck you to the people of america for flocking to those in droves and making this happen.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek#tab=summary
Not sure why you threw that in there. Even if not a single person of America saw it, the last two still made almost triple their budget.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that crusade. Those movies are absurdly popular and profitable.
Popular and profitable do not equate to being any good. They're 'Star Trek-flavored' movies at best, and it's an entirely artificial flavoring that has only a superficial resemblance to that which it is being substituted for. Axanar would have used 100% Natural Ingredients, comparatively speaking. It's like we're in a Bizzarro Universe, where everything is upside down and inside out: CBS/Paramount is making the shitty 'fanfic' movies, and the real movies are being doused with gasoline and set on fire before
Re: (Score:3)
The casting ranges from decent to just plain bad. Part of Scotty's character was his physical presence, which the guy playing Scotty in the new movies completely lacks. Benedict Cumberbatch, for all of his excellent qualities as an actor, doesn't look like a eugenic superman and isn't very convincing in that role. Walter Koenig managed to make the original Chekhov work, and now we can appreciate that it wasn't easy.
A great way to piss off your audience (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one, will think twice before spending any money on any new Star Trek ventures going forward. Very, very disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
If anything it might be time for the people that want to do their own movies to look into starting on some fresh perspective - or scan through the Science Fiction literature for stories that can be used for movies. There's a huge pile to dig into, like E.E. Smiths Lensman series, Jack Vances Demon Princes, Heinlein, Asimov and so on...
Don't let the opinion that controls one franchise limit you - be creative with something completely different. I wouldn't mind a Sci Fi movie where you have a man with a kilt
Re: (Score:3)
They are not restrictions They are guidelines.
Also, the only reason to follow them is to eliminate any risk of getting sued. That's it. If you follow the narrow path it lays out, your production will not raise the ire of CB
Well That settles it... (Score:4, Insightful)
If yucking it up over some 1960's barely acceptable at the time TV series and the host of less than endearing follow on properties including 5 TV series and even more full length movies is going to be controlled by these rules, sell me some tribbles...
Gee, it's sooo nice that you will now let me make a video using your concept I think I'm going to willingly follow your rules... NOT...
Best Paramount can hope for is to keep tossing out the DCMA letters and suing folks who violate their copyrights, nobody is going to follow these rules unless they want too. Can you imagine? Sir, prove that Tri-Corder in your parody "Enterprise's last emission" that Kirk is using it to ogle that female yeoman in his quarters is really licensed merchandise..... Do you have a receipt to prove where you got it?
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the stuff that has been made is pretty professional, though. We're not talking about some cheap short video. These aren't full-on productions, but they spend decent amounts of money. A suit against their production would shut them down. It definitely feels like they only want short items that can't actually tell a complete story or compete with them in any meaningful way.
It's pretty shitty and all about money and control, but what did you expect from Paramount?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of seeing it as competition - see it as supplementary stories. If some fan stuff is good enough, then endorse it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of seeing it as competition - see it as supplementary stories. If some fan stuff is good enough, then endorse it instead.
Why? What does Paramount get out of it?
Re: (Score:2)
nobody is going to follow these rules unless they want too.
Nobody follows any rules unless they want to. It's the punishments that, in some cases, are the only reason some people want to. And some people don't want to follow the rules just because there are rules.
Do you have a receipt to prove where you got it?
I have no doubt that the "use officially licensed props" clause was put into the restrictions by the lawyers, as a nod to the officially licensed sources of props -- who pay money for the privilege of being able to sell officially licensed props. I think it is reasonably fair if someone is going to produce
Poisoning the well with 1980's IPR policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, film and recording studios are still extremely naive about what intellectual property policy should be to maximize income. Obviously, the Star Trek fans are what has kept this franchise going for 40 years. You can count on them as an audience, which means a film is going to be a much safer investment than it would be otherwise.
To keep the fan base alive, holding intellectual property this close is simply the wrong policy. Coming to some sort of resolution with fan fiction producers would both preserve the fan base and increase profit (you can license them and allow them to make some money, as well as you).
To think, in the U.S. we just gained the right to sing "Happy Birthday" without intellectual property restrictions. That's how the non-sharing side of the ecology is going. On the sharing side, we have a very healthy Open Source community that has produced software everyone uses (even if they don't know) and that could not be built via the conventional economic paradigm because it can't necessarily be monetized directly. And we have things like Wikipedia that would just be impossible in the conventional paradigm.
Studios need to catch up. So far, they seem to be incredibly resistant to learning.
Re: (Score:3)
Really they need to come up with a very reasonable non-commercial licencing fee and let the content creators have fun with it.
Add some clauses that allows them to veto if the content is pornographic or too violent or what not, but otherwise let them go.
They'll be making easy money after that.
Re:Poisoning the well with 1980's IPR policy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is treated as common knowledge by most people who are not copyright and trademark experts, but isn't really true. It's related to two concepts in law: the concept of trademarks becoming generic, and the doctrine of Laches, which are both a lot more complicated than "if you don't enforce, you lose it". In truth, the studios could allow fan fiction all they want without losing the right to enforce copyrights and trademarks. They would indeed be safer if they licensed the fan fiction outlets.
I knew it (Score:5, Funny)
CBS/Paramount are run by Ferengis.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I knew it (Score:5, Funny)
No, a Ferengi would have rememberd Rule of Acquisition #57: Good customers are almost as rare as Latinum - treasure them
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
111 - "Treat people in your debt like family... exploit them."
Wow. 239 one seems relevant to our current lineup of movies... ""Never be afraid to mislabel a product."
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, they'd have started licensing fan fiction, charged for mandatory script approval, and rented props. Which, so long as the fees were reasonable and tied to a 'non profit' condition for the fan production, would have been an excellent solution to the issue.
Re: I knew it (Score:2, Funny)
Nope. They make their women wear CLOTHES!
CBS corporate would be SO much more pleasant if they were Ferangi. But alas, they are of the most vile intergalactic ruthless scum there is - yes, MBAs!
Re: (Score:2)
Ferengi may be shrewd, but they're interested in maximizing profit . CBS are a bunch of Klingons, trying to claim credit for Shakespeare and ultimately poisoning themselves through stupidity.
Gas, Captain. They're full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an insult to Klingons.
Re: (Score:2)
They look for things... things to make them go...
what a relief! (Score:2)
Fifteen minutes maximum you say? I suppose that means Kirk/Spock [wikipedia.org] is now limited to quickies, rather than involving lots of character development.
RIP Star Trek Continues (Score:5, Informative)
The fundraising issue really bothers me. I know that Star Trek Continues [startrekcontinues.com] had done some fundraising and was producing 45m episodes that were excellent. The production value was amazing, and they recreated parts of the set that were very convincing.
This may shut that down, without special dispensation from cbs/p.
Re:RIP Star Trek Continues (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek Continues recreates an authentic experience for Star Trek: The Original Series fans. I found they even maintain the same campiness as the original series. CBS and Paramount Studios will kill off the fan base if they persist in threatening fan-created episodes similar to Star Trek Continues.
Star Wreck ... In the Pirkining (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to be great! Trailer for Star Wreck: Imperial Edition [youtube.com]
Wash, Rinse, Repeat (Score:5, Informative)
I said it last time this topic came up, and I'll say it again now. Its no surprise to me that their rules are so draconian that they would eliminate pretty much all Star Trek fan fiction created thus far, and would make anyone think twice before bothering to create anything new. The reboot is so horrible they can't survive any real competition. Even with just a short at this point, its obvious that Axanar is going to totally blow away Star trek: Fast & Furious In Space.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to say that I do hate the reboots. Dear CBS Paramount you killed Star Trek but the fans kept it alive and ended up making it a cash cow for you. You blew it with ST:ENG. The reboots are terrible. You made the crew of the USS Enterprise into a bunch wack jobs and the new ship looks like crap.
You better hope that the Fans save your cash cow for you again or just sell Star Trek to Disney they actually seem to know how to keep a franchise working.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know that you will hate them until you watched them. But I did not buy or rent the DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
The reboot is so horrible they can't survive any real competition.
The thing is... it's not competition.
It's not like people have to choose to see one or the other. Most Trek fans would happily watch both and more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it seems like the smart thing to do would be to just take a cut of any revenue earned or just hire the best of these fan-fiction creators and bring them in to the fold. They could be the YouTube presence... the outreach to a younger audience...
what a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Good grief. This is a geek genre, for people with honest-to-god attention spans. Fifteen minutes is not a bad length of time to reach the opening credits.
Paramount Pictures can FOAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Fifteen minutes in warp drive will be several hours in real time.
EZ (Score:3)
Fund primarily via Bitcoin.
Make it as long as you want, then double, triple, quadruple, etc. the playback rate get it under 15 minutes. I'm sure every hypernerd that watches this shit can play it back at the intended speed. (And no, you won't lose frames if you merely alter the rate.)
Injustice Served (Score:5, Informative)
Lets back up here a bit CBS/Paramount. You didn't invent Star Trek. You didn't even fund it's creation. You know who did: Lucille Ball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_Ball). Yep. That woman. She sunk her company's last penny into it and sold off all her rights to her own TV show to blood suckers like you to do it, until she could not hold any longer and had to sell out completely. If she could have held out another year she would have made it, but not one of you misogynist pigs in the industry would support a woman. So you buy the rights to Star Trek out from under her for a song, and then what do you decide to do? Cancel the show! CANCEL THE SHOW! Only a massive writing campaign by fans restrain you from canceling it, to your recorded dismay, so in retribution you stuff the last season into the Friday night death slot. It wasn't for the massive rerun support of fans you would have shelved the who thing long long ago, in a closet far far forgotten.
Paramount, you have no shame and I'm not sure you deserve any of the proceeds you've made off this franchise. I wish Lucille Ball could sue you, but alas, she has a statue of limitation. Meanwhile you get to keep exploiting her and Gene's legacy endlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... typos and Slashdot do not mix. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Typos on the net is a grate way to get comments.
Re: (Score:2)
WOW!! - I did not know this, thank you so much for pointing this out!
Re:Injustice Served (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of this story is correct, but a lot of it isn't.
In case you couldn't figure it out, Desilu was Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball's production company, which they ran together. Arnaz handled the business side and Ball handled the creative side. After Ball divorced Arnaz and then remarried, Arnaz couldn't handle working with her anymore. Ball bought him out, but didn't really want to run a company. However, the studio wasn't doing so well at the time and she didn't want the staff to loose their jobs. So, she used 'I Love Lucy' spin-off pilot advance money to pay for shows like 'Star Trek' and 'Mission: Impossible'. Once the studio was doing well enough to be sold for a reasonable price and the staff would keep their jobs, she sold Desilu.
NBC originally aired 'Star Trek', not CBS. NBC were not inclined to cancel 'Star Trek', because it did well in particular demographics popular with advertisers. Roddenberry started the cancelation rumor and seeded the letter writing campaign. NBC had nothing to do with Gulf + Western's purchase of Desilu; Gulf Western owned Paramount Studios and renamed Desilu as Paramount Television.
Years later, Viacom bought Paramount. Years after that, Viacom bought CBS. A few years after that, Viacom split into a TV company (now called CBS) and a movie company (now called Paramount). The TV company owns 'Star Trek' and JJ Trek is the movie company licensing Trek from the TV company. And CBS is the current instantiation of the company formerly known as Desilu.
why i pirate (Score:4, Informative)
Are they doing anything right now to contribute to the franchise. Are they doing anything that is better than the fan made one? The answer is no. Then they should fuck off, move over and let actual interested parties, ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK, get whatever benefits those parties see fit.
You shouldn't be able to copyright a fictional universe. As long as bullshit money rules, copyright has become the spurning of creativity, not supporting it. How many years do they own "star trek" for? beyond the lifetime of most humans?? and even then, its a 60s era remake!! if you cant make enough fucking money off an idea you BOUGHT from a human, in 60 years, whoes problem is that?
A company by its nature can not produce a creative work. Humans do this, and the creative work should then remain the property of humanity, not corporations!
How dare they dictate what people do in their own time, creatively, with their own resources and skills. Fuck CBS. This shit really pisses me off!!
Re: (Score:2)
Read it like this (Score:5, Interesting)
Your stories can no longer be imaginative and better than our, you must find a way to make them more lame because we don't know how to. Breach these conditions and we will sue you out of existence.
Personally, I think the fan stories are more interesting. I've kind of given up on paramount's version of star trek because it is usually disappointing so I don't see any point in it any more. I think the fan fiction is the only thing keeping their franchise alive simply because CBS make the movies for a wider audience that isn't interested in ST knowing that fans will go for the eye candy.
I think that once CBS lamifies the fan fiction, it's all over for star trek, at least for me, simply because it's just not that interesting or challenging anymore.
Someone should liberate the rights already (Score:2)
I keep wondering if some billionaire Star Trek fans should settle this argument once and for all, by paying CBS/Paramount enough money to release the rights.
After all, I think its been established that the official studios can no longer be trusted to produce Star Trek content, and many fans feel as though Star Trek is too important to be left to the official studios.
Re: (Score:2)
Paul Allen should do it.
Unfortunately, the last several movies have been profitable, so he'll need to wait another 5-10 years to go back down in value.
counter strike (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but almost none of the original series or movies used "officially licensed" uniforms or props. They just used whatever the costume department or prop department came up with for an episode.
What you are saying here is that the copyright/trademark holder cannot authorize the production of props for production of their own intellectual property because it won't be "officially licensed". In other words, the Paramount props department cannot produce props for a Star Trek movie that Paramount is shooting because they don't have a license.
I think you might be wrong about that.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but almost none of the original series or movies used "officially licensed" uniforms or props.
Yeah...there's a reason you're not a lawyer. When you're creating things for the series, you're officially licensed.
As an aside, Gene Roddenberry was certainly not above making a quick buck off of "officially licensed" Star Trek items. [blogspot.com]
The only other logical option is revise the requirement so that people trying to make a believable fan fiction are allowed to use self-made articles of, unquestionably, higher quality than the mass produced garbage and NOT SELL THEM.
If you RTFA, it says:
If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek uniforms, accessories, toys and props [emphasis mine], these items must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products.
So if you buy uniforms or props off the rack, they need to be official. If you build your own, you're perfectly fine.
Is Anyone Troubled (Score:2)
Is anyone troubled that an entertainment company is trying to make United State laws?
Time to move on (Score:2)
What the heck is this? they are policing their fans? writing rules on how fans can contribute to the zealot-like following?
Are they doing their best to alienate the fan base? -some starting sci-fi series, books etc would kill to have the sort of mass drone following of Star Trek.
An exercise to protect their work only diminishes their profits with bad press and unhappy fans.
They want to police how fans interact with their product?! I say screw Star Trek products! -Vote with your wallet.
Isnt Star Trek
Again, this has to be addressed with legislation (Score:2)
Paramount is attempting to write law using the threat of big-money legal harassment as their police force. Many corporations do this.
The issue here is that Paramount isn't a lawyer, and their grip on a cultural meme doesn't expire. It's a money game where cultural evolution is dictated by intellectual property rights that are unsupportable for society itself.
It has been over 50 years since star trek became a part of our culture. It has been propagating through two generations of humanity. The right to c
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, do the movies in countries near Generistan. The feds there only care for real crimes, not imaginary property.
Considering... (Score:2)
...the shit Paramount has been putting out under the name "Star Trek", they're just afraid the fan products are worlds better than theirs....
Re: (Score:2)
Rightfully so, the fan products are by no means worse than anything Paramount cranked out lately.
It is no longer impossible for amateur groups to come up with something that rivals "professional" quality. The technology has become affordable, props have pretty much been replaced by CGI, so what drives costs is labor.
And people doing it because they want to do it (often euphemistically called "doing it for love", even though rarely anyone gets laid) are usually far more affordable than people doing it just f
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, as you put it, it's a labor of love, so they care more about making it "good" than making it "marketable" to the lowest common denominator....
How'd the world get this bad?
It isn't nice (Score:2)
Those who can, do (Score:2)
Those who can't, sue.
It's sad to see that Paramount has to pull such stunts to keep from being upstaged by movies made on zero budget by amateurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious: how many homeless have been housed by your Slashdot comments, since that's apparently the only metric for determining how worthwhile an activity is?
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the Ferengi.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fat shaming = sexist?
If it's about valuing women based on physical appearance, yes. Women are not objects.
Re: (Score:3)
noun
1.
anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2.
a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:
Re: (Score:3)
Do we really need to pay people millions of dollars to hit a ball with a stick and run around in a big circle?
Throwing a ball into a basket with the bottom cut out?
Slamming into one another like rutting walruses trying to pound one guy carrying a ball into the turf?
Kicking a ball then chasing madly after said ball, with the occasional (bad) performance of "He touched me, I am slain!" ?
Or smacking a small white ball then walking towards where you hit said small white ball and repeating
Re: (Score:2)
I am.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing stopping Paramount from working with fan fiction producers, even elevating the really good ones to top production quality with licensing arrangements. There's is clearly more demand then Paramount knows what to do with, which means they are loosing money by their own actions, not the fan film maker's.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright. The Star Trek universe, and the characters, are copyrighted even if someone else writes a script using those characters. The copyright holder can selectively choose to prosecute all or none of the violators at his whim.
Certain copyright violations cannot be prosecuted, such as Fair Use. But it's very unlikely fan fiction can fall under fair use, although that has yet
Re: (Score:2)
Except copyright only protects...copying verbatim or making derivative copies, still significantly like the original text/work. A character is also an idea - it's protected partly by trademark. Paramount could license these characters for little to no money and still be "protecting" their trademark.
There's no one who knows better than Disney. A lot of Mickey cartoons would likely enter the Public Domain [priceonomics.com], were it not for them using their character as a trademark. Time will tell whether it's even possible
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are afraid, very afraid that the fan films will be better than their own productions.
Low bar (Score:2)
Because they are afraid, very afraid that the fan films will be better than their own productions.
That is a rather low bar to clear for much of the Star Trek universe. Some genuinely good stuff but way too much really bad writing and the plot holes generally don't get any bigger than they do on Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
See: All Sonic fanfiction, ever.
I'd be surprised sonic has fans, let alone fanfiction.
Re: (Score:2)
you must be new to the interwebs...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These losers is actually what created the whole hype around those movies. Without them, it's just yet another franchise that cranks out movie after movie. Yes, you can do that, and it will have some success, but these losers are what boosts it to the levels where the real money is.
These losers are your life insurance as the franchise holder. Because you can, at will, whenever you please, go and do a "$franchise marathon" in a cinema of your choice and they will go on a pilgrimage to that mecca you create th