The Axanar Debate/Battle/Chat/Something – Part Two

December 19 2018

Part two of the three part Axanar debate was released yesterday morning (8am Queensland, Australia time).

The good news for Matt Miller was that more people attended the online premiere than part one did with figures reaching over 20 people and possibly more if people came and went.

Some say the series is a battle, some say it is a debate but if you really think about it, it is just two people sitting around having a discussion on Skype.

There’s nothing for either person to win or lose but they do bring us something to learn about and there is no shortage of learning in this part.

One of the interesting hypotheticals was what would you do if you had Axanar and you were sued by CBS? Would you fight them like Alec Peters or would you as Matt suggests shut your production down because it is ordered by the owners of what you are paying homage to/building a future on.

It is an interesting question, CBS and Paramount own Star Trek, it is theirs, fan film makers are their guests and so are the fans and CBS and Paramount can declare the party over at any time and they did so.

It was suggested that one would pee their pants and then call a lawyer if it happened to them.

I would of shut down production after consulting backers and lawyers of the options, it is natural to fight for something you believe in but it is a difficult situation when what you are making something that is related to somebody else’s property.

On the other hand, you have you have built up something and you want to defend your creation of the creation, your time and the money spent on the production and  and with free lawyers, it gives you options though if you lose there will be pain.

In the end, they decided to let fan film makers to have little picnics (the guidelines) instead of parties and that is pretty generous.

Axamonitor got a large chunk of the second half of the broadcast especially when talk about the escalation of behaviour was brought up as a topic.

Axamonitor is regarded as a place that only reports on negative news leaving out things like Axacon though that can be fixed by Carlos writing down everything he said to Michael Hinman as that was basically a report on Axacon.

Axamonitor was also compared to Fox News which was interesting because if Axamonitor is Fox News because they are regarded as all negative then could Fan Film Factor because of they are all positive on their Axanar reporting also be a version of Fox News?

An interesting point brought up is that Fan Film Factor is positive about all fan films, no matter how late they can be or how amateur the production is, even fat people as characters was mentioned.

Positivity is good but there is no harm in pointing out if a production has missed its target or if something doesn’t feel right, you can always say that while they’re late they are still making terrific progress.

Listeners also heard about Confirmation Bias and a book called “The Righteous Mind’, a book that describes in one analogy a person is riding an elephant and we that person is thinking that they’re directing the elephant but they are not and so they then try to justify what the elephant is doing.

All in all, it was a very interesting one hour and fifteen minutes and people should hear the whole thing and then wait for part 3.


8 thoughts on “The Axanar Debate/Battle/Chat/Something – Part Two

    1. It’s not too bad, probably can improve on it but I am just too exhausted trying to finish making my video game to really think about the complexity that is the Axanar world.


  1. I’d rather do squat thrusts in a blender than listen to those two. What’s the point? Lane is a paid shill for Axanar and Matt isn’t even a “detractor” anymore. *eyeroll*


    1. Matt is considered by Jonathan to be a detractor (Part One) and they still disagree with each other on thoughts weeks after the interview (see YouTube comments for Part Two).

      As for what’s the point of listening, you might learn something new or hear something that contradicts what you’ve heard before and was missed in the written summaries.


      1. Matt may be considered a detractor by Jonny but no one else thinks that. There’s nothing Jonny has to say that is worth believing. He’s helped Peters change his story so many times it’s hilarious.

        It’s simple. Has Peters made Axanar? No. Has he wasted/lost/used all of the money he raised? Yes. That’s all anyone really needs to know.


  2. I’m finally getting a chance to read these updates, T. I just want to point out that, had you been in charge of Axanar and simply decided to “shut down,” you likely would have been held liable for tens of millions of dollars in damages…and so would your cast and crew. Simply shutting down production didn’t mean the lawsuit would get withdrawn. CBS and Paramount wouldn’t negotiate and didn’t offer settlement terms. They simply waited. So while they waited, Alec did the only thing he could (and had to) do: lawyer up and file a response (which resulted in the plaintiffs needing to refile the original lawsuit because the first one was so poorly written).

    From that point forward, it was “game on,” and neither CBS/Paramount nor Alec (through their attorneys) were giving an inch of ground. Both sides got a million dollars (each) of solid legal representation. All of my legal eagles commented that this case was played superbly by all involved. No real mistakes were made on either side if you discount that initial filing by CBS/P.

    As for whether or not I need to point out on Fan Film Factor that a fan production is “late,” here is an example of how I do it:

    There’s a positive, classy way to do it (my way, see above) and then there’s Carlos’ way. To give you an example, let me quote a line Carlos has published countless times (stop me if you’ve heard this before)…

    “…after losing its never-finished California production facility after sinking nearly three-quarters of a million dollars of donors’ money without ever shooting any of Axanar inside.”

    Believe it or not, I just copy-pasted only HALF the full sentence that Carlos wrote! He REALLY needed to get it in there.

    But let’s take a look at what Carlos feels he “needs” to say…

    1) “never-finished” – it’s important, I guess, to hammer that point home over and over and over and over again (without, of course, ever bothering to mention how much WAS finished: the giant green screen, new electrical system, track lighting, five-layers of sound-proofing on the floor that could also be used to brace the sets for stability), elephant doors for additional sound-proofing from parking lot noise, office space (carpeting, furniture, computers, etc.), make-up rooms, lounge area, editing bay, kitchenette, storage, not to mention the sets and production/editing equipment. “Never-finished,” huh? Not only is that HALF the story, it’s actually only about 10% of the story! Good “journalism,” Carlos!

    2) “after sinking three quarters of a million dollars of donors’ money” – also important to remind people (every single time, Carlos?) while neglecting to mention the over hundred thousand dollars of Alec’s personal money that went into not just the down-payment and security deposit but also to keep rent and utilities paid after donor funds ran out. The donors knew they were donating to help build out a studio. And as costs increased, Alec never hid that information from the donors. Also, I should mention that there are many OTHER verbs out there besides “sinking” (which certainly implies a negative connotation): “applying,” “utilizing,” “injecting,” all come to mind as less negative alternatives to Carlos’ careful selection of the more manipulative “sinking.” Again, good “journalism,” Carlos…don’t want to “lead” the reader too much to the writer’s internalized bias, right?

    3) “without ever shooting any of Axanar inside.”

    Ow…I think Carlos might have hurt himself tying and twisting those words together. Do you remember back when Carlos used to say that the studio “was never used to produce a single frame of Axanar”? But that wasn’t really true, was it? Rob Burnett spent months editing the Vulcan scene while sitting inside the studio in his editing bay office. So production actually happened inside the studio. That’s when Carlos shifted his language from “producing” to “filming” and added the word “inside”…because he was well aware that the Vulcan Scene was filmed in the parking lot just OUTSIDE the studio.

    So after quite a bit of linguistic contortion, Carlos can now make it sound like the studio was never really used to make any of Axanar…despite the Vulcan scene having been produced there. And frankly, where does Carlos think the actors were when they got into costume and had their make-up done and waited around away from the hot California sun as shots were set up? In the parking lot? Hardly! They were INSIDE the studio using make-up rooms and the lounge and the costuming room. Silly boy!

    Now, Carlos will argue that he says “shooting,” but just about anyone in the industry–including Carlos–will tell you that “shooting” includes getting the actors into costume and make-up. Otherwise, you’re just shooting Gary Graham in a T-shirt and jeans, not Soval. Hollywood professionals would laugh at Carlos’ wordplay “gymnastics” of turning the sentence into “shooting any of Axanar inside” just to mislead people into thinking the studio was never actually used.

    And that’s the difference between me and Carlos…other than the fact that I write my blogs in the first person when I talk about myself. Carlos refers to himself in the third person in sentences like this: “Lane also pointed to Pedraza’s attendance at Axacon followed by the lack of an AxaMonitor article about it being a positive experience for the 30 people who attended.” Just say “I” and “me,” Carlos. It’s no secret who’s writing your blogs, dude. 🙂

    But the difference is that I don’t go out of my way to write sentences carefully designed to reinforce certain critical talking points or subtly remind people of negative aspects of certain fan films. Is Pacific 201 late? Sure it is. But I don’t say, “Pacific 201, the fan film crowd-funded with over $56,000 in fan donations three years ago and still not completed.” I don’t say, “Starship Farragut, whose finale episode ‘Homecoming’ was funded with more than $15,000 in donor funds, filmed in June of 2016, and still remains unreleased more than two and a half years later.’

    There’s just no reason for such manipulation and negativity on Fan Film Factor. I celebrate fan films. I am as positive as I can be about all of them. I have no agenda other than making sure fans have a place to support and learn about fan films in an inspiring and uplifting way…because that’s what fan films should be!

    And that is why the Fox News analogy does not ring true for Fan Film Factor. (My apologies for the lengthy post, Tiggy.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s