The non-judgemental critic

Now, I make no bones about the fact that I am not a critic.

If you want someone to hand-feed you your opinions about the good, the bad and the ugly in entertainment, go read a critics' blog. Lord knows there is no shortage of them. I'll not fall into the trap of tarring all critics with the same brush and say that they are all a bunch of egocentric negative opinion mongers. I have occassionally read a good review, one that pointed out strong and weak points in performances and plots. They are, sadly, few and far between.

You know what really gets up my nose though? (Isn't that the purpose of owning a blog, so that I can tell you?) It's the self-appointed experts who come out of the woodwork whenever the subject of fan films is mentioned. The kind who laugh at the acting or makeup, the not-exactly pretty actors, the plot, the script, the in-flight food!

Y'know, perhaps they're right? In fact, yes! They're absolutely right - fan film actors are not worth the money they're being paid. No, wait, that's not right - they aren't being paid. In fact it's costing them thousands to do it.

Well, perhaps you the viewer should demand your money back, I mean you didn't pay good money to see ... Uh, no, that doesn't work either, you downloaded it for free, right?

Well, I know that *I* could do better than that! Except ... to tell the truth ... I probably couldn't, besides I'm not exactly the handsomest of dudes myself.

Still, you'd think that people would take more care over their productions ... uh, like seven years in the making for "The Savage Empire"?

But I mean, it's so amateurish isn't it? Which ... I suppose is logical since they are amateurs

yeah, well, we'll all just have to go watch some of the new professional Star Trek which is pouring out of the studios ... *sigh* in my dreams buddy!

The pivotal issue is that they are amateur productions - in many ways it is an extension of amateur theatre. As I said in an earlier Blog ...

I have immense respect for the work that these guys are doing and appreciate it for what it is - artistic self-expression. I tend to watch them to see what they put into it rather than what I can get out of it. For example when I watch James Cawley playing Captain Kirk on New Voyages I don't compare his performance with Shatner, I enjoy it for what it is. I appreciate watching the sheer energy and will power that it needs to put any fan film together. It's not just a pat on the back for their effort though, if you push your "willing sense of disbelief" to a higher level than for a professional work, it is good entertainment!

You can't just walk out of "Film appreciation 101" and start running off all the short-comings of a fan film compared with a professional production. As an overall production they can't compare.

... Will they become a threat to mainstream media - TV and films? Not a chance in their current form. Perhaps if Paramount allow limited licencing, you might get a new crop of small Indy operators but without a way of recouping their expenses they will remain the domain of the fan who likes to act.

There are challenges of resources that a fan film cannot approach on the same level as a professional production. Money can buy the solution for most of the problems that a production has. If you have money, you can buy costumes, props, scenery, you can hire the best talent in writing, acting and directing, you can pay for publicity.

For an amateur production buying your way to production is not an option, you need to use "Plan-B": sweat equity! You make your own costumes, props and scenery, you get writers, actors and directors who will work for free and you create your own publicity. It can be done.

However you have to get past the mentality of, "if it ain't professional it ain't good!" They have work-arounds and short-cuts for most problems, skills that can be learned, talents discovered and excercised. The end result, no matter what the level of quality, will be a reflection of the work and determination of the people involved. By all means watch one - watch all of them! - do so with an open mind and you might be pleasantly surprised. Do us all a favour though - don't watch it if you're going to judge it by professional standards, eh? You'll just be disappointed, write a whiney review and give everybody the pips.

... well you'll give me the pips anyway.

Kirok's View: Copyright

Professionally produced entertainment is an expensive business, there is no denying it. Paramount have invested a considerable amount of their stockholders money in the Star Trek TV series and movies and as a corporate entity they have a legal and ethical responsibility to strive to return the maximum profit for that investment.

Sometimes we loose sight of the scope of the cash outlay involved, until we read estimates of $3 million per episode for Enterprise! How could it possibly cost so much? The simple fact of the matter is that it takes money to produce quality TV & movie productions, lots and lots of money. Somebody has to pay the salaries of the actors, directors and film crew, pay for the materials to create the sets and maintain the special effects and wardrobe departments, pay the licensing fees, insurance premiums and completion bonds.

Paramount, or to be more precise Viacom which is the parent company, has at different times aggressively defended their copyrights or taken a lenient view towards fan productions.

For example, in 1996, Viacom went on the attack, sending out a wave of cease-and-desist letters to webmasters of Star Trek fan sites which had copyrighted film clips, sounds, or insignias. Under threat of legal action, many Trekkers shut down, leaving behind scanned copies of letters sent by Viacom. Shortly afterwards Paramount, a division of Viacom and owner of all things Star Trek, launched a Web site you had to subscribe to, Star Trek: Continuum, on July 10. It is surmised that this was to prepare the public for their next film, Star Trek: First Contact. A similar crop of C&D's in 1997 seemed to signal that Viacom was targeting sites that "are selling ads, collecting fees, selling illegal merchandise or posting copyrighted materials" according to the then president of Paramount Digital Entertainment David Wertheimer.

Viacom's actions have not been without their detractors though. Willard Uncapher saw it as flawed marketing and a poor appreciation of the realities and possibilities of the internet. In an article in Wired News, Jennifer Granick, a San Francisco criminal lawyer who went on to champion cyber rights, felt that the unofficial sites should be covered by the "fair use'' doctrine in U.S. copyright law. In a 1998 article Howard Besser, an Assoc. Professor at UCLA saw it as an example of "the content industry … exploiting concerns over digitisation and attempting to reshape the law by strengthening protection for copyrightsholders and weakening public rights to access and use material."

The more astute amongst my readers who check sources (always a good idea!) will perhaps have noticed that all this refers to fan fiction. "FanFic" has born the brunt of the debate about balancing the copyright owner's legal rights against the fan's use of that material in their works. This forms a precedent on which the relationship between Viacom and all fan production groups can be built. In legal terms there is no basic difference between someone who uses Viacom copyrighted material, say the design of a phaser, to make a card model of it, use the name in a fan fiction or show it in a fan film. The only difference is a matter of scale. Paramount is not the heartless demon that some paint it to be!

Paramount's official stance seems to be that they have not heard of any fan films when asked, turning Nelson's classic blind eye to the problem. There have only been a few substantiated cases where Viacom has clashed with a fan film. Robbie Amper's first two episodes of "Starship Highlander" are no longer available through legitimate channels because of this and even Star Trek: New Voyages got a C&D once. However you will note that in both cases negotiation and compromise made it possible for the fan groups to continue! Paramount is not the heartless demon that some would paint it as.

There has been no official statement that fan film producers can use to show that they have any legitimate right to use Paramount's copyrights. There has been an unsubstantiated mention of a press release from Viacom regarding fan films earlier this year but this has never been verified. Basically producers have followed a self-imposed code of conduct that has become a defacto standard.

• Thou shalt not accept any money in case it is construed as an attempt to make a profit
• Thou shalt acknowledge that Viacom holds the copyrights to all things Star Trek.
• Thy film should be available for free and not performed in public for profit

The professional media establishment is far more interested in stamping out copyright piracy - the exact copying and distribution of professionally produced films and TV series. Make no bones about it, buying or downloading bootleg movies or TV episodes is theft and it is a major cause of loss of revenue for the studios. It is a multi-million dollar "cottage-industry" and anyone who knowingly supports it is not a Trek fan they're just a damn fool! The simple fact of the matter is that the more profit Paramount make from Trek, the more chance there is that they will make more series and movies.

However what we are talking about here is not video piracy. Fan films are a type of unauthorised "derivative work", they are productions that use Trek designs and lore as a jumping off point or a framework for entirely new and original tales. Fan producers freely acknowledge that the trademarks and copyrights that they mention in their works belong to Paramount and because of this they make no attempt to profit from their work. Currently fan films are walking a tightrope between their oft-stated knowledge and respect for Viacom's status as the copyright owner and their desire to use those copyrighted materials in their films. There is considerable conjecture as to the future of fan movies. Pessimists expect the worst: that Paramount will exercise "the letter of the law" as regards to copyright and serve Cease and Desist orders on all fan productions. Optimists believe that, as long as they continue to play by the rules, there is no reason for Paramount not to continue to tolerate them.

To me, the overriding question when considering Paramounts response and relationship to the growing number of fan productions should be - Is this a legal problem or a commercial problem? I mean, are they compelled by law to take a certain course of action or can they respond in a manner that best suits their commercial needs. To put it bluntly: are the lawyers in charge or are the managers?

Let's view this as an ethical question. What is the purpose of the copyright laws? To assert the rights of ownership by the professional producers - Paramount - over their works: the characters, designs, scripts, music … etc. These rights of ownership usually mean getting a fair monetary return by the producers and distributors for their investment but it can also include the rights of the creators (scriptwriters, composers etc) to be identified as the authors of their work. This protects against plagiarism and assumes that they should have a certain creative control over the use that others might make of their work. The threat of litigation is the force that the law uses to enforce the owner's rights when they are compromised.

Fan film producers have no problem with any of this. They acknowledge the commercial right of ownership that Paramount has and there is no attempt to divert any money away from them. From an artistic standpoint, they not only acknowledge the work of the writers and directors, they venerate them! Remember we are talking about fans here! Where is the need for punitive action here?

I would go so far as to say that fan productions are doing the opposite. My contention is that they are maintaining Paramount's revenue by keeping interest alive in the Trek franchise. In fact they are doing even more - they are an active force for increasing Paramount's revenue on the general and the specific level. Consider …

• An older fan is consumed with nostalgia for the Trek movie era after watching a fan film. He is likely to rent or buy one of the new digitally enhanced DVDs. A profit for Viacom.
• A teenage fan sees a machinima made from "ST: Elite Force II", he buys a copy to try out one of the fan-made Mods that are maintaining if not extending the genre's foothold in the gaming world. When the new Star Trek Online game starts he is likely to be one of the first to try it. A profit for the licensee and Viacom.
• A kid makes a card model of a phaser and wants the costume to go with it, his Mum might be a good enough seamstress to make one but she is more likely to buy one. A profit for the licensee and Viacom.
• Once our kid and his friends get involved on their role-play they want more and better props, they could make them but they are more likely to buy them. A profit for the licensee and Viacom.
• If those kids knew that there was a thriving fan film culture out there for them to show any videos that they might make, they are more likely to invest more money in costumes and props. This is exactly what is happening with Star Wars right now! This is exactly what Robert Mueller and his friends on "Star Trek: Mystery Area" are doing.

Look at it the other way around - is a viewer likely to watch a fan film and say: "I don't need to rent or buy any more Star Trek on DVD. This is good enough for me"? I have the greatest respect for fan films and their creators but let's get real about this! Fan films might achieve a "resonance" of the greatness of the original Star Trek TV episodes or movies but they can never be more than an "echo" of the original "chord". Aspects of a fan film can surpass the original. A mainstream production company could probably never take Hidden Frontier's bold stance on gays in Trek and the production values of Exeter and New Voyages are equal to if not better than the original seasons.

The question is: will this situation, continue? Could Viacom be a sleeping giant who might awaken and destroy the fan films? I asked this question of Jack Marshal, at that time an Executive Producer of New Voyages, in an interview for Starfleet International's "Communique" last June.

I suppose they could, but why would they? Believe it or not, Paramount is very aware of it's Trek fanbase and the last thing they want to do is have another web crusade like they did in the 90's where they shut people's websites down and alienated the fans. We've had some preliminary talks with them regarding licensing and before that had been in constant contact with Viacom's legal epartment and know that if we follow the groundwork they've laid for us, we'll be ok. … our success has been a double edged sword. But a danger of getting shut down? I think it's nil as long as we follow the guidelines they've set out for us.

Its the old "Golden Rule" - Respect: You get what you give. You respect Viacom's commercial need to make a profit from their merchandise and intellectual properties and they will respect the fan production groups right to exist. If one side or the other breaks the gentlemen's agreement that exists then they will loose the respect of the other parties, the balance will be lost and we all loose.

~(>!<)~ Notable Fan Films?

Wikipedia is an internet phenomenon. The idea is that it is an encyclopedia written, not by experts, but by ordinary folk such as you or I. The very name says it all: "What I Know Is". It is meant to be an accumulation of the personal knowledge and experience of a wide range of individuals. It is "peer reviewed" in that the equals of the author judge it for accuracy. Unfortunately, like the horse designed by a committee, it does not always end up looking like our original idea.

Over the past months I've been involved in an attempt to compile an encyclopedic article on the Star Trek fan film scene. My original idea was to make it comprehensive and all inclusive, from the largest and most complex projects to the smallest concept groups. Others have a different idea, that it should be a summary article that includes only the most notable productions. This sounds simple enough, but you are faced with a knotty decision: What do you put in and leave out? What are your criteria for selection?

Even Wikipedia is open to interpretation as regards to what should and should not be allowed in. Wikipedia has seemingly given up on trying to define what it is but has (quite reasonably) an extensive list of things that it is not. On the one hand they say that it is not a paper encyclopedia and thus has no limit to the number or (within reason) size of articles, then on the other hand they make an issue of notability.

I have a definate problem with the idea of using the concept of notability to say what stays and what goes, not least of which is the fact that "notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)". What is more, the definition of notability is so subjective that it is virtually impossible for personal bias not to play a part. The only objective, quantifiable criteria that have been suggested are Google hits and IMDB moviemeter ratings, both of which measure popularity rather than notability.

Popularity, even critical acclaim, should not be the only criteria for notability. Read any hundred word summary of Star Trek and the odds are it will mention the fact that it had the first interracial kiss on TV. Yet how many would be able to give you the name of the episode? It is by no means the most popular episode, any number have been given that accolade although I reckon it must be a toss-up between "The Naked Time" and "The Trouble with Tribbles". If we were to choose the most popular by critical acclaim, it would probably have to be "The City At the Edge Of Tomorrow" which was awarded the 1968 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation.

Even if we accept Google and IMDB as a ratings system (more, much more, on this later), the values you end up with are comparative rather than absolute. I mean how many Google hits makes a production "notable" or a "major project"? To illustrate, the productions which have been culled from the article so far fall into the following broad groupings…

• A few entries were for fan films that could not be found mentioned anywhere else on the internet. Anything listed needs to be independently verified otherwise there is a possibility of inaccuracy - accidental or on purpose! [cough:entfan!:cough]
  
• A second group encompasses the "Concept groups" who might only be as far as getting a script together and investigating resources - not seriously in pre-production, even though they may be seriously working towards starting production.
  
• Pre-production groups, which have not started filming yet but are in the process of actively preparing resources for production are constantly described as "vaporware", even though they might be auditioning cast, building props, creating cgi, even filming trailers.
  
• Most contentious of all are the fan film productions which are simply not popular because they are not well known. They might only mentioned on a single web page that has no free download link. This group includes mentions of fan films produced long ago in VHS that are not available in electronic form and might not be available at all now. The very existence of some of them has been doubted because they are not mentioned on the internet. Much as I love my 'net it is not the only repository of knowledge on the planet!
  

The first group is against Wikipedia rules and I have no problem with their being dropped. The others represent different stages of development of a fan film. In biological terms, it is easy to say when the pupae become the caterpillar, the caterpillar a larvae and the larvae a butterfly. The different stages of a fan film are much harder to define. I have used the following categories…

• Concept group - Investigating possibilities but no major commitment of resources or money.
  
• Pre-production - A group that shows an investment by casting, building, learning and testing.
  
• Post production - A group that has started or finished filming and is preparing the raw materials for final presentation.
  
• Fan film - A group that has a finished production available to the public.
  

I can understand dropping the concept groups from the Wikipedia article. They haven't committed themselves to production yet and it is the production of Trek fan films which is the subject of the article. I might even be able to understand dropping pre-production groups if the size of the article were an issue, however it's not. It has been said that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, meaning that it should not be used to write about future happenings, in this case productions. This is the one and only concrete claim I can see that can be levelled at pre-production groups that is defensible.

The way I see it, this article is meant to be about fan films of the Trek genre which do not spring fully formed into the world like Venus on the half-shell! They are progressively built works that demand a massive investment of infrastructure and time - anything from months to 6 years! The fanchises that they build up along the way are a work in themselves which can include podcasts, trailers, webcomics, convention appearances and a massive web of inter-relationships, sharing personnel, props and experience.

Fan films are not a commodity like a loaf of bread that you pick up at the shops. They are a major investment of the lifeforces of the hundreds of people involved and to say that they have no place in Wikipedia is to say that Wikipedia is focussed only on commodities and not the social and cultural forces that have created them. Cut out the pre-production groups and you ignore a field of endeavour that is becoming a potent force in the fan world.

In my opinion this represents a departure from the whole principle that Star Trek fan films have been built on - films produced by fans for their own enjoyment and the enjoyment of their friends. Certainly everyone takes pride in their work and tries to create something to the very best of their abilities whether they are in front of the camera or behind it. However there has always been an element of respect on the Trek fan film forums whereby groups are non-competitive and supportive, rather than elitist and exclusive. Perhaps this hearkens back to Roddenberry's principle that Starfleet and the UFP are built on community or group efforts, cooperation rather than confrontation?

Indeed, my initial impulse is to stand toe to toe and argue that this fan film is more worthy of inclusion than that one is. However this leads to an insidious downward spiral because to show that one is better, I have to imply that the other is worse, that there is something lacking in it. I must make a subjective value judgement and if I win my case, although one group wins, another looses. I have chosen not to play this game for I feel that this leads, not to an equitable grouping, but to elitism.

By far the most distasteful aspect of this whole deal for me is the idea that notability is a popularity contest that is graded by using a rating system - Google & IMDB - and anything that is not notable is not worthy of inclusion. When did we start having an entrance exam for inclusion in the Trek fan film community? The next thing we'll be getting will be a scoreboard, grading fan films by their popularity.

For God's sake people, don't do this to us! We've just lost "Star Trek: Enterprise" and all professional Trek production has been put on hold because it didn't rate highly enough. Now you want to do the same thing to fan films? Are you nuts?

Who gives a dead dingoes donger about ratings?

I thought Trek fan films were supposed to be a free expression of our fandom. So you like The Original Series? You want to see more and you have a group of like-minded friends? Go for it! Do it! You will have to search for the talents and develop the skills needed to make a film production - if you believe in your production enough to put your hard-earned cash on the line, I'm assuming you will want to make the effort to make it the best film you can. Beyond that, its nice to get accolades, perhaps you might want to show it at cons or in film festivals, perhaps you might do it again, but are you really worried if it isn't popular? You're doing it for yourself and those who enjoy TOS, if it doesn't come up to scratch on some ratings board outside TOS fans, Google, IMDB or Neillson, should you be bothered?
Mark my words, we're not talking about constructive criticism which is offered to improve your work here, we are talking about a ratings system that is trying to deny your work's existence as a Trek fan film!

Up to now the Trek fan film community has been supportive and non-judgemental. Smaller groups, some not even having their own website at times, have been welcomed onto the forums of the larger, more well established and respected groups - one of the top three of which I might point out is Exeter's "Subspace Forum" which was not deemed as notable as " Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation". Shouldn't Wikipedia reflect that? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to reflect reality rather than change it? Why would any one want to change it?

I can only give you my opinion based upon what I have seen in my short time as a Trek fan production observer. It is up to you, the Trek fans and film-makers and, to a wider extent, SciFi fans in general to make your own decisions.

If Wikipedia is meant to be a reflection of reality, if it is going to be a true, authoritative work on the subject, it's going to have to report on all productions regardless of size or quality. I'm not suggesting equal mention for all, some need only be a linked name, but their position in the broad scheme of things needs to be acknowledged otherwise readers will get an unbalanced view of the field. When did we start making value judgements about which productions were "notable" enough to be called fan films?

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Contents 2006

The LIEF Erikson

The fanzine of the House of L'Stok

January,2006 - The Fan Productions issue

The Trek United 2005 Fan Film Campaign
..... ~(>!<)~ Kirok's view: Franchise Fatigue?
..... Andromeda; Constellation; The Continuing Voyage; Dark Armada; Excalibur; Impact 25; Intrepid; Lexington; Mystery Area
..... =(o_0)= Kirok's View: Copyright
..... The Legacy; Unity; Farragut; Highlander; Tales of the Seventh Fleet; Hathaway

Other Fan Film Groups
..... >(~!-)~ Kirok's View: Why watch a fan film anyway?
..... Final Odyssey; Hidden Frontier; Monument; Morning Star; New Voyages; Exeter; The Klingon Watch

Fan Audio Drama Groups
..... >(^V^)< Kirok's View: From Radio Play to Audio Drama
..... Pioneers; The Section 31 Files; Defiant

Fan VR Groups
>(*v*)< Kirok's View: From Animation to Virtual Reality
..... Lego "Brick films" (The Kronos Files, Brick Trek); The Sims (Sim Trek 1, Sabotage); Flash (How You Live, Enterprise Flashed, Endeavour, Stone Trek); Machinima (Borg Wars!, Enterprise! Behind the Scenes); CGI Animation (Valiant, Enterprise Continuation Project)

Fan Game Mods
..... >(o{}o)< Kirok's View: Roll-Your-Own games
..... Half-Life 2 (EF: Total Conversion, Borg Wars); ST: Elite Force (Enterprise!, Enterprise IV - In a Mirror Darkly, Space Station K7, Starbase 11); Unreal Tournament 2004 (TrekUT); Freeware (Final War)

Fan Comics
..... ~(^_^)~ Kirok's View: From pulps to web comics
..... Elite Farce, Enterprise Oddities, Star Trek Animated Series Comics, USS Atlantis

Breaking News!
..... Enterprise Fan Film?; Fan films on Wikipedia; Star Trek Parodies; Fan films on Community TV; Trek United Fan Film Tribute Trailer

Who is Kirok of L'Stok?

At different times I've been pulled up about the fact that I use a nom de plume on the internet. You have a choice of three answers.

He could be an English-born Australian, a married father of two who has worked on the railways for 27 years and has reached the pinnacle of his career as a technical officer crunching numbers into an unrecognisable pulp on a computer all day!

... or he could be a Klingon abandoned at birth because of major handicaps, raised by Vulcans and used as a human guinea pig for cybernetic implants.

... or he could be a Star Trek fan who likes to write. A member of Starfleet International and correspondence member of a Canadian fan club, he edits two SFI Fanzines, is a moderator of their Writers group and regularly contributes to their Newsletter, Communique. A major contributor to the Trek United Fan Film Campaign, he writes for their Newsletter and contributes articles for their front page as well as for Planet Fandom and yes, I am still struggling to get The LIEF Erikson out as a monthly Fanzine.

OK, I'll 'fess up. I'm all three!

I've been described as a "fan video maker" and I must admit that I held the title of producer of the Trek United Tribute Trailer although I can take little credit for the amazing body of work that it has become - Trek rider, the Director deserves full credit! Without her it would not exist. The closest I have come has been to make two
short "Teasers" for the Trek United campaign on Windows Movie maker. I have aspirations to participating in one or more fan productions in the future, but for the moment I am a comentator rather than a producer!

It all started when my kids were little, I decided to take up something for fun to show them that Dad wasn't really a boring old stiff - I started getting involved with Star Trek. Writing Fan Fic, articles, editing Newsletters and, lately, inflicting my Blogs on an unsuspecting world.

When I was a kid in England years ago, my family was incredibly working class - you could see your life laid ahead of you like train tracks and it was heading into bleak, grey world. I dreamed of doing extraordinary things but the unspoken law was "People like us don't do things like that". "People like us" don't become geologists or helicopter pilots, write books, listen to classical music or go to the theatre. "People like us" work in factories, watch TV, read, listen and watch whatever we are told is popular or trendy.

My kids have shown me that a person can do absolutely anything! By encouraging them to read, write ... create ... I've started to do these things myself.

Did I tell you Kirok loves his kids?

Fan productions: Fair Use or Piracy?

This Blog is based on my rebuttal of material posted on the history page of the Wikipedia article "Star Trek, other storylines", where a subsection was added entitled "A Questionable future for fan films". This was deleted, reposted, deleted again, had its inaccuracies listed, yada, yadda, yadda! Until eventually the discussion page became bigger than the article!

I was encouraged to add my comments to the history page even though it was getting incredibly large. This did catalyse certain material that I am collating for Decembers edition of The LIEF Erikson. This is a preview ...

To me, the overriding question when considering Viacom's response and relationship to the growing number of fan productions should be - Is this a legal problem or a commercial problem? I mean, are they compelled by law to take a certain course of action or can they respond in a manner that best suits their commercial needs. To put it bluntly: are the lawyers in charge or are the managers?

Let's view this as an ethical question. What is the purpose of the copyright laws? To assert the rights of ownership by the professional producers - Paramount - over their works, the characters, designs, scripts, music … etc. These rights of ownership usually mean getting a fair monetary return by the producers and distributors for their investment but it can also include the rights of the creators (scriptwriters, composers etc) to be identified as the authors of their work. The threat of litigation is the force that the law uses to enforce the owner's rights when they are compromised.

Fan film producers have no problem with any of this.

• They acknowledge the copyright ownership of the original Star Trek copyrights
  
• They do not divert revenue from Viacom by accepting money


• By being predominantly an "original work of authorship" they are by definition an unauthorised derivative work


• They are non-confontationist and admit that they exist by the sufference of the copyright owners.


• From an artistic standpoint, they not only acknowledge the work of the writers and directors, they venerate them! Remember we are talking about fans here! I see no need for punitive action.

I would go so far as to say that fan productions are doing the opposite. My contention is that they are maintaining Paramount's revenue by keeping interest alive in the Trek franchise. In fact they are doing even more - they are an active force for increasing Paramount's revenue on the general and the specific level by drawing new fans to the franchise.

If that fails to impress you look at it the other way around. How much profit will Viacom make by taking a Draconian stance and closing fan productions down? certainly Disney does this, but remember Disney is in active production of even its oldest copyrighted characters, Mickey and Donald! Paramount has said they will not have any new professionally produced within the forseeable future so their sole income will come from merchandising their existing productions. Who buys them? The fans and any new fans who might come along.

So explain to me again how closing down fan films on a legality and alienating their only source of revenue is going to deliver a higher profit to their stockholders? I would contend that it makes sound long term commercial sense to encourage fan productions

Why watch a fan movie?

It's easy for viewers to look at a fan movie and be critical when comparing it to the professional productions.

I like to compare it to amateur theatre. My daughter's in a local production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" and she is really excited about it. I've been to some of the rehearsals and the singing is good, I don't know about the acting as yet although they are taking it seriously and working hard on it.

I have to face reality though and say there is no way on Gods green Earth that they will be able to put on a production that will be on the same par as the ones which starred John English or John Farnham. [For our international friends, they are high profile Aussie performers who were in different professional productions of JCS]. So why should I pay good money to see something that I know will not be as good as a professional performance?

I mean besides the fact that Daddie's little girl is in it :P

I suppose different people go for different reasons but I go, knowing that it will be less than perfect, that these will be amateur performances and I judge them on their level. The lead singer might be good for his age and you might think he'd do well professionally, the director might be able to put a slightly different spin to it that you had never thought of. Or the experience might just give you a little resonance, an echo of the heady days when it was on the stage and it was the best thing since sliced bread!

This carries over to Trek fan productions.

I have immense respect for the work that these guys are doing and appreciate it for what it is - artistic self-expression. I tend to watch them to see what they put into it rather than what I can get out of it. For example when I watch James Cawley playing Captain Kirk on New Voyages I don't compare his performance with Shatner, I enjoy it for what it is. I appreciate watching the sheer energy and will power that it needs to put any fan film together. It's not just a pat on the back for their effort though, if you push your "willing sense of disbelief" to a higher level than for a professional work, it is good entertainment!

It's like the old saying goes, those who can act become actors, those who can't become critics.
One of the things that killed ST: Enterprise IMHO was the number of armchair critics who judged, and in many cases pre-judged it.

People who are critical of fan fims should watch one or two then watch an original series episode afterwards. In many ways the only two things that make TOS stand above them are the scripts/plots and the acting, both of which are still a pretty high benchmark to reach. Production-wise, costumes, CGI, sets etc, fan films are right there with them.

Will they become a threat to mainstream media - TV and films? Not a chance in their current form. Perhaps if Paramount allow limited licencing, you might get a new crop of small Indy operators but without a way of recouping their expenses they will remain the domain of the fan who likes to act. Professionals can and will create higher quality productions because they have the money to pay for the best talent in writing, acting, CGI etc.

No. Their biggest impact is in my opinion in the inspiration they are for the next generation of fans. They are saying 'No! You don't have to sit on your duff watching re-runs and waiting for the next season. You can make your own!' It is a role playing game on a grand scale where you pretend you are an actor, a director, a CGI artist or a musician ... And if the end result falls short of professional standards, does it make your enjoyment any less exhilerating?