Talk:Prelude to Axanar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Peters' history of harassment

Why doesn't this article cover Alex Peters' long history of harassing anyone who puts down the failed Axanar project? And why doesn't it discuss the fact that he has gotten into legal hot water for pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars without producing the promised film?

Beyond the scope of the article. This is about Prelude, not Peters being a jerk. Carguy1701 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Identity of the other Constitution prototype

Are we sure the other one is the Constitution herself? I just rewatched the film and I can't make out the name Constitution or the registry number NCC-1700 anywhere. Carguy1701 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A new class is usually named after the first ship of class (for example, the Constitution-class would be named after the first ship built of that class, the Constitution). In the rare events where the first ship of class gets destroyed/lost at a very early stage (for example, sunk/destroyed during ship trials, depth testing, etc.), the name of the class may be shifted to the next ship in class. For example, when the US Navy submarine Thresher was lost, the class name was shifted to the next boat in the class, which was the Permit. With all this in mind, it is logical to assume that the other ship being constructed in the video is the Constitution, herself (if we can exclude that no other ships, besides Enterprise, is being constructed at that moment). However, we can not really claim within the article that it is her without a source which definitively says so (obviously, and cliché for you at this point, compare WP:OR versus WP:RS which are guidelines in this area for Wikipedia articles). So unless we have a reliable source which says, effectively, "Yes, the other ship is the Constitution," then the article should not currently include that detail. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that first bit. D'oh. Carguy1701 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello all, I am on the production crew for Axanar (not Prelude) so have a direct line to Alec Peters. I just asked him about this and can confirm the other ship can be considered to be the USS Constitution NCC-1700. When I asked him, he said "It was never discussed, but I would say yes, it is the Constitution". Bmused55 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because the USS Constitution is the lead ship for the class doesn't mean it was one of the two ships being shown being constructed in the Axanar system. Starfleet has more than one shipyard. For all we know, there could be multiple shipyards churning out the new class of starship, and more under construction than just the two shown in the film. On top of that, if you look at the film closely, the USS Enterprise has progressed much further in its construction than the other ship. If the other ship is really the USS Constitution and since it's the lead ship of the class, then it should be further along than the Enterprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.164.254 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Graphics Engine / Package used

Is there any mention of what this project uses to create the graphics? for example is everything modelled and animated in some Autodesk product - or perhaps are they using some other system (such as cryengine for its new movie capabilities)? 80.6.183.33 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Prelude to Axanar is not Axanar

This article is about the short film, not the feature length film Star Trek Axanar. The last paragraph of this article belongs in a new article about or at the very least the article should be renamed to ST:Axanar or something similar. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be better if the article was renamed and reorganized. Prelude to Axanar is part of a wider Star Trek: Axanar project and I doubt there is enough material for two separate articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I think ST:Axanar would be a better title. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

ST:Axanar would not be accurate either as the production removed "Star Trek" from their title mid to late 2015. So a new article would best be named simply "Axanar" Bmused55 (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the change just happened two months ago, when Paramount announced their new fan film guidelines. Funcrunch (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking of another fan film that changed their name (and other ST assets) after the new guidelines were released. Funcrunch (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Axamonitor Description/Appropriateness as an External Link

Leaving aside that Axamonitor probably falls under #11 and/or #12 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, calling it "critical" is not a personal bias, it is accurate. HubcapD (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not the person who removed "critical" but I agree with the edit. I believe my previous description, "Website covering the Axanar project, often critical of executive producer Alec Peters." is most precisely accurate. Axamonitor is not "for" or "against" the production itself. Rather, Alec Peters management of the project and his veracity are generally the focus. Chris Condon (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I am ready to move on to discussing the appropriateness of the link, considering it appears to conform to #11, and possibly #12 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. HubcapD (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there's no apparent objection, I am removing the link for the reasons above.HubcapD (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I realize this is 18 months on but I think Axamonitor is a wholly appropriate link because it provides historical context on the project(s) that is otherwise missing. The man behind the site is a former AP reporter who treats the subject as news, and is fairly objective. This article already skewed "fannish" and selectively worded, although I have tried to address this and make it more objective and encyclopedic.MrNeutronSF (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The link isn't appropriate. Whether or not the person is a former AP reporter isn't relevant. The fact is the site is written by one person, and if the person has help it's due to it being an open wiki. It's really just a fansite sort of site, single in its purpose, written by a single person. There's no editorial oversight or fact checking, like you'd expect from say, the BBC. This site is a clear failure of #11 and #12 of links to avoid as noted above. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)