CBS/Paramount, Axanar and Discovery

This blogpost is based on comments at Trekmovie about the lawsuit around Star Trek. This blog entry comments on a current court case, and there's a great chance, that the post in many of its parts does not contain fact-checked information (I didn't start looking, so only assumed the veracity of the comments linked). This post also contains lots of speculation, commentary and criticism.

Timing

In terms of public relations, CBS/Paramount were too hasty in going after this Mr. Peters and his "Axanar". The brand owners could have waited him out to see his final product, and if the proprietors didn't like it, then they wouldn't have licensed it in the end; or they'd have claimed full or partial ownership per trademark laws or somesuch.

Rationale

In terms of the law, CBS/Paramount needed to sue, because of several reasons:
• Mr. Peters — per comments under the referred article — had collected a fair chunk of money using the Star Trek brand name in order to run a production. The company/-ies could not have decided to sue later, because this could have created a dangerous precedent and devalued the brand for them, and they would have been regarded (by their shareholders, for example) as negligent towards their property — something that executives and CEOs never do in good faith.
• Part of the execs' jobs is to protect the brand through lawyers and licensing, because companies must earn money and can't lose any.

Alternative universe

In order to make mostly his work of fiction happen, Mr. Peters collected funds from the public using the "Star Trek" name (per comments read), which name was not his, and which was not licensed to him.

For Mr. Peters, it would have legally (IANAL) been far more hassle-free [to have created | to have tried to create] his own science fiction franchise and set up a funding drive. Mr. Roddenberry did it with his brainchild, and sold it to Desilu. The rest of _that_ is history.

A recent example of space-based stories made into a successful sci-fi show is "The Expanse".

Why?

Some think, that the lawsuit was prompted from fears, that Mr. Peters could have made better stories. His supporters already believe in better stories as originating from Mr. Peters, but no actual "Axanar" film/episode has been released, and the jury is out on this one.

The detractors of "Axanar" counter — based on the actual "Prelude to Axanar" trailer — that that film/show would have turned out to be very amateurish.

In both cases, Paramount/CBS could also have let it slide and not file suit. If "Axanar" is indeed (or turns out to be) as bad as its detractors claim, then filing suit seems frivolous and really not worth the effort.

Or that "Axanar" is so bad, that it had to be stopped in order to avoid it tarnishing the Star Trek brand. This can happen, and brand integrity is a thing.

OTOH, if "Axanar" showed true quality, then CBS/Paramount should have felt embarrassed enough to create their own series that would have been (or could be) an order of magnitude better. As we are seeing already, "Star Trek: Discovery" seems to be in extended pre-production. Just so.

I don't really rule out embarrassment as one of the drivers of the lawsuit, which could have been meant to shut down the production of "Axanar" just to eliminate competition that looked better.

I mean, a large media company is sitting on a huge franchise, and there's no running tv production based on it, until some small outfit releases a trailer for something that looks and feels almost exactly what The Original Series used to look and feel like.

Maybe this might have prompted the green-lighting of Discovery.

The great divide.

As it is, the lawsuit is not helping, because its presence divides the fans into two main camps that think the other is worse by every parameter imaginable.

The ongoing court proceedings unintentionally serve as cause for antagonism from some fans towards the official creative side. (to wit: lambasting the design of USS Discovery as hideous and worse..)

The camp supporting "Axanar" might think, that as CBS weren't doing anything at all with the franchise in the tv market, while the movie studio simultaneously churned out blasphemous material in violation of established dogma (those fans whinging about "JJ-Trek", etc.), there was somehow a void that needed to be filled.

The official side and the camp that supports that side — and certainly also the lawsuit — are now seen as anti-fan; and the official creators are now also regarded as the party ripping off, this time apparently from "Axanar" itself, as some commenters vehemently posited.

There is no information if the final "Axanar" product exists, or whether Paramount/CBS have seen any of it beyond the trailer. As far as I know, "Axanar" production was halted because of the court case.

Who wins?

The real winners in this dispute would be all the other fresh sci-fi tv shows, notably "The Expanse", "The Man in the High Castle", and "Westworld". Now, if only "Stargate Universe" were resurrected...

And Discovery?

Well, I liked the new ship reveal, with a majestic vessel based on an earlier Ralph McQuarrie design, the strong music and the mysterious setting. And I have no idea, why do people find that design so digusting. The savagery of comments under the YouTube reveal clip resembled fat-shaming.

Why many men are anti-abortionists?

While this post discusses many of the abortion/anti-abortion issues, it does not offer any concrete solutions.

It's about control, and I agree with the those who posit, that men see the child as an extension of themselves.

There isn't all that much to do about the child, but controlling the woman and their possible relationships in the future.

There are two aspects to this: one is cultural, the other emotional —

1. If a child is born, some guy finally feels validated (I don't know... of his powers or anything);

2. If a child is born, then for a hapless straight male it's just a device to control the future of a woman who might not even love that guy, while that guy can then partially or wholly control the life [path] of that woman through the child by tying her to him, or him to her (depending on material circumstances, etc). Because the child exists.

2.1 It's also about competition, and that is to deny other men the woman they desire. Because when a woman is pregnant, she is not available to other men.

(Women do similar things with alimony.)

For a man's frame of mind — if the poor foetus is terminated, all that physical and emotional effort goes to waste (for a guy), and the woman is free to choose a more suitable mate.

Before abortion was safe, many women were virtual prisoners of the men and their whims from the moment of conception.

The availability of abortion actually strengthens natural selection, and leaves less levity for chance and circumstance, on which (lots of) ugly, old, or otherwise spurious men depend/ed. There had to have been a very large amount of shotgun marriages that were never ever happy.

I guess, women used to get raped a lot more, and that was in order for some men to force themselves upon the women throughout the women's future lives. Even if that kind of involvement was very short.

So, conceiving a child alters the life path of a woman without her consent, and often at the behest of men (many of whom lack any good faith in the first place).

With safe abortion, all that "privilege" has been taken away from men, but pro-choice men tend not to frame it that way, and certainly won't speak like that.

Life

A whole 'nother issue is the life of a child.

I do support the child being brought to term and maybe given up for adoption in the event it's impossible for a mother to bring the child up. This requires that the adoption system is effective and not corrupt. Well...

And that the woman and the child then both have the right to meet one another even before the child reaches adulthood, while the woman is still free to look for a suitable mate. But not all orphanages and foster parents have been good, nor are many nowadays.

On the wisdom of marking things down on paper

This was a comment reply discussing a prop on the table of an important Romulan personality (a pro-consul or senator) from Star Trek: TNG's Unification two-parter. The discussion was then about real-life things used in sci-fi as props, and I put the following related memories into that discussion.

I have somewhere the Canadian TV Guide's 1996 "30th Anniversary Star Trek" edition that contains feature articles, production how-tos, and episode guides up to VOY's "Basics", and there was one article, where set design and props people explained, how they'd add funny easter eggs to props that had text on them.

The tv guide was a gift and was supposed to be a collector's item for me, but being a youngish kid and very nearly totally unaware of this, I used pen or pencil (whichever was available) to mark down episodes I'd recently seen as ok/not ok. I wish I'd copied episode titles on separate pieces of paper at least, but back then, this thought never crossed my mind. Poor tv guide collector's edition, I grieve thy former purity :\

Then in the late-1990s/early 2000s I learned of Farscape, and somewhere out on the interwebs there was a website that documented the many bloopers in Farscape, including real-life stuff that was converted into some fantastic sci-fi thingy :-)