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 :-)

A shortlist of composers for SGU

Joel Goldsmith was the score composer for Stargate Universe -- a short-lived, but high-quality science fiction tv series. His music for SGU made a lasting impression on me. The son of Jerry Goldsmith, Joel passed away in 2012, and he left very large shoes to fill.

So, here's a shortlist of musicians I would consider to compose music for any future iteration of Stargate Universe (hopefully a continuation).

People who have contributed a lot to science fiction and fantasy, and who are now major composers:
* Brian Tyler -- Best-known for his piece from Frank Herbert's Children of Dune, which featured in the first trailer for Star Trek 2009. Tyler also contributed to Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Regeneration". Track here. Tyler is now known for his work on major action movies.
* Steve Jablonsky -- Desperate Housewives (the theme is best-known), The Island, Ender's Game. Major composer, lots of movies.
* Ramin Djawadi -- Thunderbirds (film), Prison Break, Game of Thrones, The Island (additional music).

Other film and television composers:
* Ty Unwin -- BBC's documentary series: Earth, Space, Journey to the Edge of the Universe, The Incredible Human Journey, and several others.
* Leonard J. Paul -- The Corporation (documentary)
* Peter Golub -- Countdown to Zero (documentary)

Musicians who have written scores for films:
* Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails -- The Social Network, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (U.S. version)
* Pärt Uusberg -- In the Crosswind (Risttuules)

Musicians who should and would, given the opportunity:
* Front Line Assembly -- pioneering work in Techno-Industrial, soundtrack for the AirMech game
* Mike Foyle & Signalrunners -- Love Theme Dusk, Shipwrecked.

Composers, who generally don't write for film, but whose works have extensively been used in film and television:
* Arvo Pärt

Religion in Estonia and in Nordic countries

A reply in an IMDb forum to a post about religion (wrt "Ida").

There are differences between eliminating religion, not following organised religion, and being spiritual instead.

Most research and surveys fail to be precise enough to record the latter two notions, and thus their methodologies are all similar and very nearly always skewed to present black/white results that inadvertently (or by intent) support a black/white worldview.

For people in Nordic countries, religion is something very personal. I'd say it's the same in Northern Europe.

For example, Estonia is about the least-religious country in the world, because surveys don't take into account spirituality. It's that among Estonians, organised religion is not followed much, if at all. I have a feeling, that Nordic countries are similar in that regard.

There is, of course, a possibility, that people in Estonia might see religion as something so personal, that they might as well not indicate their affiliation.

The Die Is Cast: Why Sisko chose to disobey orders, and why Odo chose to stay on DS9

There be spoilers for those, who haven't watched these episodes.

I read a review of "The Die is Cast", an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", and the comments that accompanied the said review.

Two very widespread issues for many people who watched the episode, are Sisko disobeying orders to not go into the Gamma Quadrant to retrieve Odo, and Odo choosing to return to the station and not join the Great Link and return to his people -- something that he'd wanted to do for a long time.

Text in this post is licensed under Creative Commons-Attribution / CC-BY.

re Sisko not returning --

Commenter DLPB wrote, that one of the most serious crimes that a captain can commit, is neglect of comrades.

Furthermore, Odo is a Changeling, the nature of which makes him a very valuable asset; his presence on the station is essentially Bajor's life insurance policy, and Sisko knows that very well. So does Odo, [spoiler—] especially when he chooses to stay on DS9 after the Dominion and Cardassians much later overran the station's defenses, and Sisko was forced to leave.

Lovok's reveal is the reason Odo finally chose instead to return to DS9, because he understood the danger that the Dominion posed to Bajor and the entire Alpha Quadrant. We should not forget, that Odo is an officer of Bajor.

Were he to join the Great Link right then and there, his adoptive home would have been left completely defenseless, and the other shapeshifters would have then been free to work their magic on DS9.

Because Odo's presence on Deep Space Nine meant, that the Dominion really could not use the station and Bajor as a springboard into the Alpha Quadrant (they could not attack either for fear of hitting Odo by accident), and therefore had to go past these places to use Dukat and the Cardassians to expand their galactic domination. This essentially bought some time for everyone. And the Alpha Quadrant.

Of course, Fake Lovok didn't like it, and that's why he chose to use the narrower definition of 'no Changeling has harmed another', in that he decided not to notify the Jem'Hadar to not shoot at (or even provide cover to) the runabout carrying Odo and Garak, who were attempting to escape the mêlée of a very intense space battle.

There's a high probability, that Odo has by then realised Fake Lovok's hypocrisy about the 'no harm' adage, because the runabout was repeatedly shot at, and lost its shields.
----
Many episodes later, we can actually see how palpable Odo's importance is during Dukat's occupation of Terek Nor, as Odo's presence alone causes Weyoun to defer to Odo (because like any other changeling, he's like a god to the Vorta) — much to the chagrin of Dukat and the annoyance of the Female Shapeshifter, who finally arrives in "Sacrifice of Angels" to neutralise Odo, and by proxy, the resistance movement on the station.
----
Edit: This post was initially published on 02.09.2016 03:33 UTC +0300 (01.09.2016 19:33 UTC -5). A minute or so later, I posted much of this text in a comment here.

Supi keetmine veel enne ERMi uue hoone köögi avamist

Reaktsioon Delfi/Eesti Päevalehe (EPL) artiklis kommentaarile. Nimelt kajastas artikkel seda, et Eesti Rahva Muuseum (ERM) loobus EPL-is reklaami avaldamisest, sest EPL kirjutas ERMi veel avamata uue hoone köögi kohta igast materjali; tüüpi, et pakutava toidu hind on kolekallis ja et üldse polevat see asi aus ja hea. Kuskil kõrval on ERMi reklaam, et tule ja vaata. Kognitiivne dissonants tekib kohe ja loomulikult ei saa ERM enda kohta käivate EPL-i artiklitega kuidagi nõustuda. Parim kommentaar kõlas nii: "Kõige odavam on [reklaamida] Nelli Teatajas. Aga kes seda loeb?" :D

Tabav küsimus. Sellest võib teha sobiva järelduse väljaande mõnede lugejate kohta.

Tegelikult on probleem selles, et kööki kritiseeritakse kritiseerimise pärast. Kritiseerida oleks olnud palju mõnusam alles peale ERMi uue hoone ja sellega kaasas käiva söögiasutuse avamist.

See võimalus pole üldse mitte kadunud, sest koht on veel avamata.

Sest siis oleks saanud püsiva kaebevarjundiga külastajad käia kohal, mugida ERMi köögi kooki ja vinguda nagu muiste, aga nüüd võttis EPL kogu vingumise lõbu enneaegselt ära. (kui kohutav.)

Lisaks — ERMi kohvikus ei hakka ainult käima kõik eesti rahvad, vaid ka turistid, kelle maksuvõime on palju arvestatavam. Kulud tuleb millestki ju tasa teha.

Niigi ei kritiseeri keegi KuMu hoones asuvat kohvikut, sest mitte väga kaugel KuMust on Kadriorus kohvikuid veelgi.

Nagu suurte projektidega ikka, on ERMi köögi ja kohvikuvõistluses väljavalituks saanud võitjal palju konkurente, kes kõik jäid kaotajaks, ning kes võitjale nüüd hammast ihuvad.

(Seos on muidugi tõendamata och puhas spekulatsioon. Ja üldse ei oma see blogipostitus ajakirjanduslikku kvaliteeti, ning on mõeldud kommentaariks.)

Lohutuseks ettevõtjatele, kes ise tahtsivad ERMi kööki ja kohvikusse pesa teha, aga ei saanud:

Teie saate avada ERMi vahetus läheduses mõnusama, hubasema ja odavama kohviku.
Konkurents on magus, eks ole?

P.S.
Kes iganes teine oleks saanud ERMi uue hoone kööki pesa teha, oleks temagi olnud ainuke [võitja], samuti konkurentide ülima kadestuse objekt, ning oleks ka langenud hävitava kriitikatule alla. Nii et vahet pole.

Kogu ERMiga seotud loos sellel nädalal on algava septembrikuu võitjaks ERMi kohvik ise. Kallis küll, aga kohvikust võib pikkamisi välja kujuneda omamoodi institutsioon, mida külastatakse pühadel päevadel ja piduriietuses. Sest isegi halb reklaam on reklaam.

Organiseeritud religiooni eestlased ei usu, seega kirikute ja posijate asemel võib ERM ühes kohvikuga transformeeruda ateistliku aseaine pakkujaks neile, kel vaimsusest vajaka.

Laiemalt võttes on sensatsioonihimu ja klikinälg nakatanud kogu Eesti ajakirjandust, ning EPL ei ole ammu esimene või ainuke. Hiljuti lõikas näppu näiteks Postimees, mille järel võiksid nii mõnedki inimesed kaaluda oma nutiseadmetele kõrvaliste pilkude eest kaitsva turvavarustuse (kiled, ümbrised) paigaldamist.